Section 8(2A) applies to low-rate inter-State sales; a clarificatory circular did not alter the notification.

Inter-State sales of electronic goods taxed at 2.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh were treated as falling under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the local tax rate was below four per cent. A notification issued under section 8(5) was held to apply only to sales governed by section 8(1) or section 8(2), and not to transactions already covered by section 8(2A). The circular dated 18.03.2002 was described as a clarification of that position rather than a modification of the notification dated 10.10.1995, so it did not reduce any statutory rate or contravene the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the circular dated 18.03.2002, which construed the notification dated 10.10.1995, violated or modified the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the inter-State sales of electronic goods taxable at 2.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh fell under section 8(2A) rather than section 8(1) or section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The inter-State sales in question were of goods other than declared goods and the corresponding intra-State tax liability in Uttar Pradesh was 2.5 per cent inclusive of surcharge. On that basis, the applicable Central Sales Tax regime was section 8(2A), because the local rate was below four per cent. The notification dated 10.10.1995, issued under section 8(5), was confined to sales referable to section 8(2) and could not be extended to transactions falling under section 8(2A). A notification under section 8(5) can operate only in relation to goods attracting the higher statutory scheme under section 8(1) or section 8(2), and not where the local tax itself is below four per cent. The circular merely clarified this legal position and did not alter the notification or reduce any statutory rate.

Conclusion: The circular was valid and did not contravene the notification dated 10.10.1995; the petitioners' contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be without merit and were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 applies only to inter-State sales falling within section 8(1) or section 8(2), and it cannot be invoked to govern transactions already covered by section 8(2A) on the basis of a lower local tax rate.

---