TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (10) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1949, and 9th November, 1950. The other case covers the period of assessment between 10th November, 1950, and 30th October, 1951. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 441 of 1955 the assessee got some relief by way of a first appeal, and in both the cases the second appeals of the assessee were dismissed as out of time. We need not, however, refer to the amounts involved for the reason that the points raised are covered now by authorities and all that we have to do is to give a binding decision for future cases on similar points. 3.. The tax was levied on sales in which admittedly the goods were not delivered in the State. The assessee despatched goods to Uttar Pradesh where other dealers sold them to consumers. The short point is whether sales t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 403. and the decision of the Division Bench was upheld, though it was reversed on the ground that a writ in that case might well have been issued after the amended Explanation was considered to be unconstitutional. That question, however, does not arise here. 6.. It may be pointed out that the nexus theory was accepted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. United Motors Ltd. [1953] 4 S.T.C. 133; A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 252. That case was dissented from by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar[1955] 6 S.T.C. 446; A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661. but the nexus theory was not dissented from except by a learned single Judge. Since the Supreme Court did not reverse the United Motors Ltd. case [1953] 4 S.T.C. 133; A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffended the first clause of Article 286 of the Constitution. This follows from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar[1955] 6 S.T.C. 446; A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661. The transactions in the two cases before us after 26th January, 1950, therefore will have to be judged from these two points. The curative provisions of the President's Order or the Ordinance or the Act would save the collection of tax from the operation of the second clause but not from the operation of the first clause. The first clause has an Explanation added to it which says that tax can only be collected by the State in which the goods have been delivered for the purpose of consumption in that State. In the cases before us ....