Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRY
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ANANTAPUR - Appellant
Versus
N.NAGENDRAPPA, P.HUSSAIN PEERAN SAHEB - Respondent
Decided On : 03-20-56
SALES TAX - Levy on purchase of untanned hides and skins by licensed dealers - Validity - Madras General Sales Tax Act and Turnover and Assessment Rules - Whether repugnant to Article 286 (1) (b) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The State sought to levy sales tax upon the dealers in the State on the amount for which they bought the untanned hides and skins sold and exported out of India. The dealers objected to the levy of the tax and their objection was upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in some cases but over-ruled in others.
Finding of the Court:
The levy of sales tax on the purchase of untanned hides and skins by licensed dealers, levied under rules 4 (2) (d) and 16 (2) of the Act, is not illegal by reason of any contravention of Art. 286 (1) (b) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the levy of the tax is authorized by the Act and the Rules? 2. Whether even if so authorized, the Act and the Rules are not repugnant to Article 286 (1) (b) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act and the Rules permit the levy of sales tax at the point of purchase of untanned hides and skins by licensed dealers who sell and export them to foreign buyers. 2. The exemption under Art. 286 (1) (b) does not apply to dealers in the position of the assessees in these cases.
Final Decision: Tax Revision Cases Nos. 25; 41 and 44 of 1955 allowed. T. A. B. T. R. C s 26 of 56 and 45 of 55 dismissed.
( 1 ) THE question that arises in these cases relates to the levy of sales tax in respect of transactions in untanned hides and skins under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and Turnover and Assessment Rules made thereunder, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules" respectively. Untanned hides and skins purchased by licensed dealers within the State were sent to commission agents outside and sold and exported by those agents to foreign buyers, The State spught tp levy sales tax upon the dealers in the State on the amount for which they bought the unjanned hides and skins sold and exported out of India. The dealers objected to the levy of the tax and their objection was upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 13 some cases but over-ruled in others. The State and the assessees have preferred revision petitions in so far as the order of the Tribunal was adverse to them. It is common ground that the assessees are licensed dealers carrying on business in hides and skins in the State, and are not exempt from taxation under section 3 (3) of the Act. The tax is sought to be levied on them as the last dealers who bought untanned hides and skins in the State on the amounts for which they were bought, the said amounts being included in their total turnovers, Two questions arise for our decision: (1) Whethser the, levy of the tax is authorized by the Act and the Rules and (2) Whether even if so authorized, the Act and the Rules are not repugnant to Article 286 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Mr. N. Rajeswara Rao, the learned Advocate for the assessees referred tothe title and preamble as well as to the definition of "sale" in section 2 clause (h) of the Act in support of his contention that the Act contempleated a tax only on sales and not on purchases and that lialaility was illegally sought to be imposed by the Rules on the purchasers of untanned hides and skins. This argument, however, was not further developed. Sales tax, as observed in Proaince of Madras v. Bodu Paidanna is a tax levied on the occasion of the sale of goods and is a tax on *,he proceeds thereof, whether taken individually or collectively. Whether the tax is levied on the seller or the purchaser, its ultimate incidence is on the consumer. Under normal conditions the tax is regarded by the dealer as an addition to cost and ia added to selling prices. Whether the tax is collected in the first instance from sellers or purchasers, it would normally be passed on to the consumers and the tax would be really a tax on sales. The legislative competency of the Provincial Legislature to make the law relating to sales tax was derived from Entry No. 48 in List 2 of the VII schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, which related to "taxes on the sale of goods. " The contention that the aforesaid provision did not authorize any law with respect to tax on the purchase of goods, was negatived by the Supreme Court in Syed Mohammad and Co. v. State of Andhra and it was held that on a proper construction, Entry N,o. 48 in List 2 of the VII Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 was wide enough to authorise a law imposing tax on purchasers as well as sellers of goods. It makes no difference therefore whether the tax is imposed on buyers or sellers. The Provisions of the Act and the Rules relevant for our present purpose may briefly be referred to. I refrain from lengthening this judgment by quoting the provisions in extenso. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines a " dealer " as any person who carries on the business of buying and selling goods. Section 2 (h) defines " sale " as meaning, every transfer of property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for a price. Section 2 (i) defines " turnover " as the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a dealer. The identification of the subject-matter of the tax is found in what has been referred to as the charging section Sections which provides that,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.