TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (9) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; HEGDE, J.-The appellant, a limited company, was a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in brief "the Act"). It was a manufacturer as well as a dealer in liquor. It was selling liquor to dealers in Pondicherry, Karakkal and Goa. For the year 1962-63, its total turnover of sales to places outside the State of Kerala, the State in which the appellant's registered office is situate, was for Rs. 8,28,859.40. Out of this the value of the liquor sold to Goa after January 21, 1963, was Rs. 22,622.50 and the value of the liquor sold to Pondicherry including Karakkal after August 16, 1962, was Rs. 1,15,516.95. Pondicherry became Union Territory with effect from August 16, 1962, as a result of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (1) relating to lower rate shall not apply unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes a declaration in the prescribed form, that is the 'C' form in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (5) says: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in respect of such goods or classes of goods as may be mentioned in the notification and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale by him from airy such place of business of any such goods in the cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er relating to sales mentioned earlier. Aggrieved by the assessment orders made against it by the respondent, the appellant moved the High Court of Kerala under article 226 of the Constitution to quash the assessment order. A learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court quashed the assessment order on the sole ground that Goa and Pondicherry were not States. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge clearly overlooked the provisions of article 367 of the Constitution read with section 3(58) of the Kerala General Clauses Act. The learned single Judge did not decide any of the other contentions raised in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the single Judge, the respondent took up the matter in appeal to a Division Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions that the appellant was required to produce were declarations prescribed by the notifications issued under section 8(5). Under that section the State Government was empowered to provide for hard cases which may not come within the scope of section 8(4). The notifications issued afforded certain concessions to the assessees. They did not restrict the rights of the assessees. But for those notifications dealers in Kerala who had sold goods to dealers in Goa and Pondicherry would have had to pay sales tax as provided in the State laws as it was not possible for them to take the benefit of section 8(4) for the reasons already mentioned. Section 8(5) specifically empowered the State Governments to grant any concession "subject to such condit....