TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (3) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, and they raise the same question of interpretation of sub-section (vii) of section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The petitioners have been assessed to sales tax for the year 1955-56 and the main question for decision in these cases is whether the sales of beedies by the petitioners in the Malabar area within the Madras State during the year were lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to tax as they are not first sales of the beedies within the State of Madras. According to him the sales by the manufacturers to the petitioners are the first sales and the sales by the petitioners which are taxed in these cases are only second sales and such second sales are not taxable. This argument was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal and has been reiterated before us. An analysis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Sub-section (vii) of section 5 makes the first of the latter category of sales liable to tax and this has already been decided by us in another case, Sadhoo Beedi Depot, Beedi Merchants, Cannanore v. The State of Kerala, T.R.C. No. 1 of 1958*. In the cases before us the manufacturers from whom the petitioners purchase the beedies are exempted from taxation under section 3(3), so that the subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 3(3), as their turnovers would have exceeded Rs. 10,000. We would not express any opinion on the merits of this contention as it is not necessary, in our view, for the purposes of these cases. In the present cases there is no evidence or indication that even these aggregates of sales and purchases of the manufacturers of the beedies would have been more than the exemption limit of Rs. 10,0....