TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (1) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) and (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which came into force on 1st July, 1957, these transactions have become liable to be taxed. They have held that a portion of the turnover, i.e., Rs. 34,839-77 is liable to be taxed under section 8(2) and the remaining portion of the turnover, i.e., Rs. 86,577-49 is liable to be taxed under section 8(1) of that Act. We may mention at this stage that the latter portion of the turnover is covered by 'C' forms, as required by sub-section (3) of section 8. We have had occasion to consider the scope of section 8(2) in C.R.P. No. 964 of 1961*. Therein we have opined that the liability of a dealer, excepting *Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shall be nil or shall be calculated at the lower rate, as the case may be" (underlining is ours)*. The dispute in this case centres round the interpretation to be placed on the words "the sale or purchase of any goods by a dealer is exempt from tax generally and not in specified cases or in specified circumstances. " According to the learned Government Pleader the words "exempt from tax generally" refer to "goods" which were the subject-matter of sale or purchase. But according to Sri Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, those words refer to the sale transaction referred to in section 8(1). In other words, the contention of the Government Pleader is that unless the goods that are the subject-matter of sale or purchase are tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions is not exempt from taxation, nor the goods which are the subject-matter of the transactions in question are exempt from taxation, e.g., may be a second sale inside the State in respect of certain goods. The question for consideration now is under which category the exemption mentioned in the proviso comes. It was not argued that the exemption in question has any reference to the dealer, though such a contention, if it had been raised, could not have been unceremoniously brushed aside. The relevant portion of the clause says that "the sale or purchase of any goods by a dealer is exempt from tax generally." If the reference is to a dealer the expression "the sale" is incongruous. Further if it had referred to the dealer mentioned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., section 8(1) deals with sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Hence, prima facie, the proviso must also deal with such sales. It may also be noted that before the word "sale" found in the proviso there is the definite article "the". "The sale" must refer to some definite sale and not to any indefinite transaction in any goods, "The sale" must necessarily refer to the sale contemplated in subsection (1) of section 8. It cannot refer to any and every sale of goods. Further after the words "the sale or purchase of any goods by a dealer" and before the words, "exempt from tax generally", the verb used is "is" and not "are", which means that the verb refers to "the sale or purchase" and not to "goods." If it had referred to ....