Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- I have had the advantage of reading the judgement prepared by my learned brother Sen and I entirely agree with the conclusion reached by him, but I would like to state briefly my own reasons for arriving at that conclusion. The facts giving rise to this appeal have been stated with admirable succinctness by my learned brother Sen and I need not repeat them The facts indeed are not material, because only one single question of law arises for determination in this appeal and it does not depend on any particular facts. The question is a very simple one, namely, whether the expression Registered dealer in Section 8 (ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 as applicable to the State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) means only a dealer registered under Section 22 of that Act or it also comprises a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).

2. Since the decision of this question turns on the true interpretation of the expression Registered dealer, in Sec. 8 (ii) of the Bombay Act. we may reproduce that section as follows:

"Section 8: There shall be levied a sales tax on the turn-over of sales of goods specified in Schedule C at the rate set out against each of them in column 3 thereof, but after deducting from such turnover -

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) resales of goods purchased by him on or after the appointed day from a Registered dealer if the goods at the time of their purchase were goods specified in Schedule C."

This section has obviously been enacted to prevent multiple point taxation on goods specified in Schedule C. Where goods specified in Schedule C are sold by a dealer and obviously he must be a dealer registered under Section 22 of the Bombay Act, if he is liable to pay tax under that Act -- the turnover of these sales is liable to be taxed at the rate specified against each category of goods in that Schedule, but if the sales in question are re-sales of goods purchased by the dealer on or after the appointed day from a "Registered dealer", they would be liable to be excluded from the turnover, because the Registered dealer from whom they are purchased would have paid tax under the main part of Section 8 and the goods having already borne tax in the hands of the selling Registered dealer, the legislative intent is that they should not suffer tax again. Now the expression Registered dealer is defined in Section 2 (15) of the Bombay Act to mean "a dealer registered under Section 22" and therefore, ordinarily, the expression Registered dealer as used in Section 8 (ii) must carry the same meaning, namely, a dealer registered under Section 22 of the Bombay Act. But, as the opening part of Section 2 shows, the definitional meaning is subject to anything repugnant in the subject or context. The context in which the defined 3 word occurs may clearly indicate that it is used in a sense different from that given in the definition clause. We must therefore see whether there is anything in Section 8 (ii) or in the context in which it occurs which should compel us to place on the expression Registered dealer as used in that section a meaning, different from that given to it in Section 2 (15). We are afraid we do not find anything in the subject or context of Section 8 (ii) which would persuade us to depart from the definitional meaning of the expression Registered dealer. The subject and context in fact re-enforce the view that the expression Registered dealer in Sec. 8 (ii) is used to mean a dealer registered under Section 22 of the Bombay Act, and does not include a dealer registered only under the Central Act. If a dealer is registered only under the Central Act and not under the Bombay Act, it would mean that he is not liable to pay tax under the Bombay Act and in that event, even if he has sold goods specified in Sch. C, to a registered dealer under an intra-State sale, no tax would be payable by him on such sale and if the purchasing deal