GANPAT PANNALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IN this reference by the Sales Tax Tribunal, pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 15th January 1966 on an application made by the assessee. M/s ganpat Pannalal of Harda under Section 44 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh General sales Tax Act, 1958, the question to be answered is-"whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods worth rs 150386-2-9 delivered outside the State as a result of sale were covered under the Explanation to Article 286 (1) (a) of the Constitution and, consequently, were exempt from sales tax?"
(2.) THE material facts are that in proceedings for assessment of sales tax under the central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, for the period from 22nd October 1949 to 9th November 1950, the assessee a dealer in grains, oil-seeds, cotton etc. , claimed that its turnover of Rs. 2,73,720-0-3 of oilseeds sold to dealers outside Madhya Pradesh could not be taxed as those sales were "explanation" sales under Article 286 (1) of the Constitution The Sales Tax Commissioner held that the assessee sold oilseeds of the value of Rs. 1,23,333-13-6 to dealers outside the State to whom goods were actually delivered in their State as a direct result of sale for the purpose of consumption in that State; and that these sales could not be taxed under the C. P and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. He, however, found that sale transactions of the value of Rs. 1,50,386-2-9 were taxable as the assessee had failed to prove that those transactions were of goods which were delivered outside Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of consumption as a direct result of sale. This decision of the Sales Tax Commissioner was upheld by the sales Tax Tribunal in a revision petition preferred by the assessee.
(3.) BOTH the Sales Tax Commissioner and the Tribunal have found that sales of oilseeds of the value of Rs. 1,50,386-2-9 were to two dealers of Surat, two of navsari and one of Bombay; that the assessee did not produce any letters or documents to show that oilseeds were delivered to those dealers as a direct result of sale for the purpose of consumption in their State, and that consequently the conditions for the applicability of the Explanation to Article 286 (1) were not satisfied;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.