Turnover and tax computation on inter-State rice sales: CST component extraction and paddy tax rebate must both be applied.

In inter-State sales of rice procured from paddy purchased within the State, the turnover must first be computed by applying section 8A(1)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act to extract the Central sales tax component from the sale price. The tax suffered on the corresponding paddy must then be deducted under section 15(c), so the same tax element is not effectively taxed twice. The text also notes that Explanation III to Schedule III of the State sales tax law reflects this rebate principle, and that the contrary view of a later smaller Bench was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in determining the turnover and tax liability on inter-State sale of rice procured from paddy purchased within the State, the dealer is entitled to deduct the tax component under section 8A(1)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and to further reduce the tax by the amount levied on the corresponding paddy under section 15(c) of that Act.

Analysis: The expression "turnover" under the Act refers to the aggregate of sale prices in inter-State trade, and section 8A(1)(a) prescribes a formula for extracting the tax component where the sale price includes Central sales tax. The proviso prevents a double deduction only where tax has already been otherwise deducted. Section 15(c) separately mandates that where tax has been levied on paddy inside the State, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy must be reduced by the amount of tax levied on the paddy. Explanation III to Schedule III of the State sales tax law reflects the same principle. The earlier decisions of the High Court and the earlier larger Bench decision of the Tribunal recognised that the formula under section 8A(1)(a) must first be applied to identify the Central sales tax component and that the tax suffered on paddy must then be given rebate under section 15(c). The contrary view taken by the later smaller Bench was held to be inconsistent with the statutory text and the binding precedent.

Conclusion: The dealer is entitled to the deduction of the Central sales tax component and to rebate of the tax paid on the corresponding paddy; the contrary interpretation of section 8A(1)(a) read with section 15(c) was rejected.

---