TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (4) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he construction of the said proviso (a). Both these references can be disposed of by a common judgment. They arise out of the assessment of the respondents, Messrs Manilal Keshavji, for the two periods 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, and 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954. During the first period, the sales tax was leviable under Ordinance III of 1952, and during the second period under the Bombay Sales Tax Act III of 1953. The provisions of the Ordinance and the Act except a slight change in the numbering of the sections are identical. The rules with which we are concerned, originally formed part of the Ordinance as its Third Schedule. These rules have been continued as rules under the Act of 1953. Shortly stated, the sales tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eto, where it is certified by the purchasing dealer that the goods purchased are intended for use by him in the manufacture of any goods falling under the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said Schedule, for sale: Provided that- (a) where any goods to which this clause applies are utilised by the purchasing dealer for purposes other than such manufacture, or (b) where no general tax is actually payable by the purchasing dealer on any sale made by him of articles in the manufacture of which such goods have been used (except where such sale is itself eligible for deduction under the provisions of this clause), the price of the goods so purchased shall be included in the taxable turnover of the purchasing dealer under section 7." The e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dyed or the printed cloth in the State of Bombay, but sold it outside the State of Bombay. In the assessment of the respondents, therefore, the Sales Tax Authorities included the price of the aforesaid cloth purchased by the respondents in determining their taxable turnover. The contention of the respondents was that the case did not fall either under proviso (a) or proviso (b), and therefore the price of the cloth purchased by them was not liable to be included in their taxable turnover, while according to the Sales Tax Authorities, the case fell both under proviso (a) as well as under proviso (b). The respondents took the matter to the Sales Tax Tribunal, and the Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondents. At the instance of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aser in the manufacture of certain specified articles for sale in the State of Bombay; when manufactured goods are sold in the State of Bombay, the State would realise the sales tax leviable thereon; if a dealer commits a breach of the declaration given by him, he would render himself liable to pay sales tax on the price of goods purchased by him on issuing a certificate to the sellers. This intention of the Legislature according to the learned Advocate-General has been clearly brought out by using the word "such " before "manufacture" in proviso (a). "Such manufacture" means manufacture which has been previously described in the main clause, and the manufacture that has been described in the main clause is the manufacture for sale. The res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchaser, the proviso has the effect of a charging section, and unless by clear language charge is brought home to the respondents, they should not be subjected to tax. It is indeed true that the proviso in effect levies a tax on a purchaser, and this is a departure from the general scheme of the Act, which as already stated, imposes a tax on a seller in relation to the sale price of goods sold by him in the course of his business. The rules in the matter of the construction of a statute are well settled. "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only loo....