Sikri, J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos. 105 and 125 of 1963. The High Court by its common judgment dated August 11, 1964 confirmed the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) A common point of law is involved in both the cases and it will suffice if we give facts in Tax Case No. 105 of 1963 (Civil Appeal No. 633 of l966) in which the respondent was one T. Narayansawami Naidu, hereinafter referred to as the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in cotton and cotton seeds. Before the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, he claimed to deduct the sum of Rs. 12,32,756.45 as the value of purchases other than the last purchases of cotton. The Commercial Tax Officer exempted Rs. 10,11,534.40 but disallowed the remaining amount on the ground that cotton worth Rs. 2,27,250.00 was in stock on March 81, 1961. He found that subsequent disposal in the next year had not been proved and, therefore, it was liable to be taxed as a last purchase. In holding this he followed the decision of the Kerala High Court in Abdulsalam Rowther vs. State of Kerala, 1961-12 STC 98 (Ker) . The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) upheld the order, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dissenting from the decision of the Kerala High Court in 1961-12 STC 98 (Ker) accepted the appeal of the assessee and remanded the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for disposal afresh in the light of observations made by it. The Department filed a revision under S. 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act, and the High Court dismissed the revision. The State of Madras having obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ramanujam, urges that the decision of the Kerala High Court in 1961-12 STC 98 (Ker) and of the Mysore High Court in Hormusji Hirjibhoy vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 1962-13 STC-773 (Mys) laid down the law correctly, and the Madras High Court erred in dissenting from these decisions in the present case (now reported as State of Madras vs. T. Narayanaswami Naidu, 1956-16 STC 29.;