The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and its application to determine the tax liability for inter-State sales.

( 1 ) THESE are connected matters. They arise out of the same order. But we shall first take up for consideration C. R. P. No. 964/61.

( 2 ) THE question for consideration in C. R. P. No. 964/61 is whether on the facts and circumstances of that case, the tax liability of the petitioner, under the Central Sales Tax Act, to be referred to as "the Act" hereinafter, on his inter-State sales can be any more than what it would have been had they been intra-State sales and liable to be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Law. The turnover in question relates to sales effected by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period commencing form 1st July, 1957, and ending on 31st March, 1958. The disputed turnover relates to sale of textiles manufactured by means of powerlooms. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948, those goods were liable to be taxed under section 3 (2) read with Schedule 1, entry 2 (a), of that Act and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, those goods are liable to tax under section 5 (3) read with entry No. 7 in Schedule II of the Act had they been intra-State transactions.

( 3 ) THE charging section in the "act", i. e. , section 6, came into force on 1st July, 1957. Some of the provisions of the Act were amended on 1st October, 1958. In the course of this order, whenever reference is made to the "act" it should be understood as referring to the provisions of the Act as they stood prior to 1st October, 1958 (the amending Act i. e. , Act XXXI of 1958, which came into force on 1st October, 1958 ).

( 4 ) SECTION 6 of the Act says :

"subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, every dealer shall, with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette, appoint, not being earlier than thirty days from the date of such notification, be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. "

( 5 ) NOTIFICATION referred to in section 6 was issued on 26th March, 1957, but it came into force on 1st July, 1957.

( 6 ) FOR finding out the rate at which the tax has to be calculated and the manner in which it has to be calculated, on the sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce we have to look to section 8 of the "act". For our purpose, the material potions of section 8 are those found in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3 ).

( 7 ) BOTH the learned Government Pleader and Shri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, agree that the transactions in dispute do not fall within the ambit of sub-section (1) of section 8. They are also agree that those transactions come with the scope of sub-section (2) of that section. But they are not agreed as to the true effect of that sub-section, i. e. , sub-section (2)of section 8. According to Shri Srinivasan, that sub-section lays down that a "sale" in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be taxed under the "act" at the same rate and in the same manner as it would have been taxed, under the appropriate State law, if it had been an intra-State transaction, but without taking into consideration the minimum turnover fixed by the State law for the purpose of determining the liability of the "dealer" to be assessed under the State sales tax law; whereas according to Shri D. M. Chandrasekhar, the learned Government Pleader, while under section 8 (2) the inter-State sales are made liable to be taxed at the rate mentioned in the state sales tax law, for similar intra-State sales, the right of the Central Sales Tax Authorities to tax any sale in the series of sales, is not in any manner controlled by the provisions contained in the State sales tax law.

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Parliament's power to regulate the levy of sales tax on inter-State sales, is not in any manner limited by the provisions contained in the appropriat