TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (10) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cake. During the period 1964-65, under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, tax was leviable on groundnut seeds at the point of last purchase and on groundnut cake at the point of first sale. On 10th November, 1964, in The State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). , the Supreme Court held that no tax could be levied under the Act if no tax could have been levied under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if that sale had taken place inside that State. Applying the said decision, the Commercial Tax Officer, First Circle, Bangalore (respondent No. 1), while making the assessment on the petitioners held that a turnover of Rs. 2,53,256.74 relating to groundnut seeds and Rs. 1,79,037.80 relating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have approached this court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution. Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged (1) that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as there is no "mistake apparent on the record" entitling the first respondent to rectify the original assessment order; and (2) that the first respondent is in error in the view he has taken that the petitioners have collected tax on the exempted turnover in question. Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, (hereinafter called "the Rules") empowered an assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Appellate Tribunal, at any time, within 5 years from the date of any order passed by it, to rectify "any mistake apparent on the record". Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C.). Applying these principles, we have to consider whether the power under rule 38 can be invoked for the purpose of bringing to tax the exempted turnover in view of the amendment of the Act. When the original assessment order was made on 8th February, 1968, the disputed turnover relating to groundnut seeds and groundnut cake was not exigible to tax. The Act was amended with the object of superseding the decision in Yaddalam's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). and to bring to tax sales effected by every dealer in the course of interState trade or commerce notwithstanding the fact that no tax could have been levied under the State sales tax law if that sale had taken place inside the State. That result was brought about by section 3 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal Act in respect of any sale referred to in sub-section (1) or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale." The above section was enacted in order to relieve the hardship that might be caused to dealers by the retrospective operation of section 6(1A) of the Act. Therefore, it provided for exemption of sales tax in the course of inter-State trade or commerce between 10th November, 1964, and 9th June, 1969, if the dealers have not collected any tax. In Basappa & Bros. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Division, and Others[1971] 27 S.T.C. 241., we sustained the validity of section 3 of the Amendment Act repelling the challenge made to it as violative of ....