Judgment

HEGDE, J:- In this appeal by certificate, the only question of law arising for decision is whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had powers to enhance the tax levied on the assessee-respondent by the Sales Tax Officer.

2. The brief facts of this case are: The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer. During the assessment foe the assessment year 1960-61 the assessee claimed that five out of the transactions effected by it were intra-state sales. The Sales Tax Officer came to a conclusion that two out of these five transactions were inter-state sales and the remaining three were intra-state sales. Aggrieved by that decision the assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that all the five transactions were inter-state sales. But he rejected the contention of the assessee that it was entitled the exemption claimed by it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the tax levied on those three transactions on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce the required C certificates and therefore, he was liable to pay sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at 7% on the turn over in respect of those sales. As against that decision the assesses went up in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, two contentions were rged on behalf of the assesses viz.:

(1) That the sales in question took place in Rajasthan and as such no sales tax could be levied under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959; and

(2) That the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incompetent to enhance the tax levied by the Sales Tax Officer, as no such power had beep conferred on him under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.

The Tribunal rejected both those contentions. Thereafter a Revision was taken to the High Court. Before the High Court the two contentions that were advanced before the Tribunal, were reiterated. The High Court rejected the contention that the sales in question took place in Rajasthan but it accepted the second contention of the assesses namely, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incompetent to enhance the tax levied by the Sales Tax Officer. The High Court opined that in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the reference to the Madras Sales Tax law could only be to the 1939 Act and not to the 1959 Act. It further held that the Central legislature was not competent to enact that a law that the Madras Legislature may pass in future would be a part of its own law; a competent legislature may pass a legislation by a reference to some other law enacted by some other legislature and incorporate some of the provisions of those laws into its own law, but it cannot legislate by saying that a law that may be enacted by some other legislature in future will become a part of its own law, when enacted. It is not necessary for us, at present, to consider whether the decision of the Madras High Court is correct in view of the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Central Act XXVIII of 1969. The Central Act XXVIII of 1969 amended Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. That amended Section 9 (2) reads thus:

"Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, impos