Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.62 seconds)Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commr. Of Sales Tax, M.P. vs Minerva Minerals, Nagpur on 5 February, 1969
23. The concept of sale by a registered dealer is also relevant under the Act. Firstly, a sale by a registered dealer is taxable because his taxable turnover has already exceeded the taxable quantum and that was the reason why he had to register himself under Section 7(1). The sale by a dealer is to be contrasted with this inasmuch as a dealer is not liable to pay sales tax till the expiry of two months after his turnover exceeds the taxable quantum in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 4. This might have been the reason why in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Minerva Minerals [1970] 25 S.T.C. 64 (S.C.), the dealer was keen to show before the Supreme Court that the sales by him could not be regarded as sales by a registered dealer. Secondly, the concept of sale by registered dealer is a necessary corollary of the concept of a sale to a registered dealer in Section 5(2)(a)(ii). The two are inter-dependent. Sale to a registered dealer is exempted from tax only because the subsequent resale or post-manufacture sale by him was expected to be taxable.
Government of India Act, 1935
M.P. V. Sundararamier & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh& ... on 11 March, 1958
8. As a rule the meaning of the same word used in the same statute would be the same wherever that word occurs in the statute unless the context requires otherwise. The word "sale" in the Act has to be restricted to a sale in Delhi because that is the only sale which was taxable under the Act and the only object of the Act is to impose a tax on sales. It was argued for the petitioners, however, that the reason for thus limiting the word "sale" applies only when the word is used to denote a sale which is taxable. It does not apply when that word is used to denote a sale which is not taxable. It is argued that under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) only the first sale by the selling dealer to a purchasing dealer is taxable and, therefore, that has to be a sale in Delhi, It is argued further that the second sale by the registered dealer is not taxable and it could, therefore, be outside Delhi. The argument appears to be plausible but when intensively considered it is seen to be untenable. Firstly, the rule of construction of a State Sales Tax Law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1958] S.C.R. 1422 at 1446 is applicable to rebut this argument. The court states the rule as follows :
A. V. Fernandez vs The State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1957
12. Thirdly, the object of Section 5(2)(a)(ii) is not to stop at exempting the first sale from sales tax. No sales tax law can stop at the first sales only with an exemption. The only reason of the exemption is to secure the levy of sales tax on the second sale. The object being to tax the second sale by the registered dealer, the meaning to be attached to the second sale would be the same as the meaning to be attached to the first sale. Since according to the decision in A.V. Fernandez's case [1957] S.C.R. 837 by the Supreme Court, the taxable "sale" must be a sale inside Delhi, the words "for resale" and "for sale" referring to the second sales by the registered dealers could only mean resales or sales inside Delhi.