Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.39 seconds)Section 14 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Mathura Das Ram Saran Das on 9 July, 1976
2. The revision relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee, apart from dealing in other articles, dealt in oil-seeds. His account books were accepted. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of the sale of oil-seeds amounting to Rs. 60,741.23 on the ground that these sales were made on 2nd October, 1975 and it had already been taxed at the point of purchase and therefore could not be taxed at the point of sale to the consumer. The ground taken in support of this exemption was that oil-seeds were a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and could not be subjected to tax at more than one point in view of Section 15(a) of that very Act. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this claim and the appeal filed by the assessee failed. The point, however, found favour with the Tribunal. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and he being of the view that there was a conflict of opinion between the decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nirankari Engineering, Kanpur (page 197 injra) 1979 UPTC 1125 and the decision in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Mathura Das Ram Saran Das 1976 UPTC 518 has referred the matter to a Division Bench.
Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 10 April, 1967
This being so, they could not be subjected to tax again at the point of sale to the consumer, notwithstanding the notification issued under Section 3-AA of the Act. Neither Section 3-AA, nor the notification issued thereunder can override the provisions of Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This was so held by one of us in the case of Nirankari Engineering, Kanpur (page 197 infra); 1979 UPTC 1125. This view of ours finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 290 at 296-297 (SC). The decision in the case of Mathura Das Ram Saran Das 1976 UPTC 518 is clearly distinguishable. In that case the question was as to whether cotton yarn could be subjected to tax at multiple-points notwithstanding that it had already suffered tax once. In that case the stocks of yarn which were subjected to tax were held in stock on 1st August, 1958 and were subjected to multiple point of tax, as a result of notification issued by the State Government on 1st August, 1958. The yarn in question has already suffered tax in the hands of the manufacturer and the question arose as to whether they could be subjected to tax again.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Nirankari Engineering on 26 April, 1979
2. The revision relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee, apart from dealing in other articles, dealt in oil-seeds. His account books were accepted. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of the sale of oil-seeds amounting to Rs. 60,741.23 on the ground that these sales were made on 2nd October, 1975 and it had already been taxed at the point of purchase and therefore could not be taxed at the point of sale to the consumer. The ground taken in support of this exemption was that oil-seeds were a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and could not be subjected to tax at more than one point in view of Section 15(a) of that very Act. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this claim and the appeal filed by the assessee failed. The point, however, found favour with the Tribunal. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and he being of the view that there was a conflict of opinion between the decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nirankari Engineering, Kanpur (page 197 injra) 1979 UPTC 1125 and the decision in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Mathura Das Ram Saran Das 1976 UPTC 518 has referred the matter to a Division Bench.
1