1970 (5) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitions are directed against the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, dated 30th August, 1969. The petitioner, a dealer in cotton, collected sales tax on sales of cotton in inter-State transactions during the period 10th November, 1964, to 31st March, 1968. Tax was not legally leviable on such transactions according to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner, that the effect of the refund of the amount of tax collected by the petitioner is as if the petitioner had not made the initial collection of sales tax. Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969, which has been replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, reads thus: "10. Exemption from liability to pay tax in certain cases.-(1) Where any sale of goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

......................................." The view taken by the 1st respondent, in our opinion, is a too literal construction of sub-section (1) of section 10. The object of subsection (1) of section 10 is that in respect of sale transactions effected between the 10th day of November, 1964, when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons[....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the dealer does not initially collect any amount by way of tax. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is well-founded. The 1st respondent was clearly in error in the view he has taken that where the dealer has collected the amounts but refunded the same before the Ordinance, the case does not fall under sub-section (1) of section 10. The petitioner, in our opinion, satisfies the req....