F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated October 7, 1999 passed in T. A. No. 210 of 1999. The challenge is in respect of two items of sales to the value of Rs. 6,18,126 and Rs. 3,77,359. As far as the sum of Rs. 5,13,125 is concerned, that was a sales effected by the petitioner to the District Leprosy Officer, which is a Department of the State Government. The tax was levied at four percent. According to the petitioner, inasmuch as the sales were effected to the District Leprosy Officer, which is a central purchasing agency of the State Government and who, after effecting the purchase, used to distribute it to various leprosy centres run by the Government, by virtue of G.O.P. No. 2280 Revenue dated April 30, 1973, there was total exemption from payment of sales tax. Considering the said contention, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have found that in G.O.P. No. 2280 dated April 30, 1973, exemption from payment of sales tax by any dealer on the sales to the voluntary leprosy institutions in respect of medicines, linen, furniture, hospital goods, tools and implements needed for treatment and rehabilitation training of leprosy patients was granted in respect of specified centres. In other words, the exemption was granted by specifically mentioning the names of the centres for whom alone it was made applicable. In fact, there was a subsequent Government Order in G.O.M.S. No. 1399 CT and RE dated November 21, 1975 by which, nine other rehabilitation centres relating to leprosy beggars were also added on along with seven centres for which such exemption was originally granted under G.O.P. No. 2280 dated April 30, 1973. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the supplies effected to the District Leprosy Officer would in turn be distributed to various centres including the centres for whom specific exemption was granted in G.O.P. No. 2280 dated April 30, 1973, we are not in a position to accept such a contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. We had the advantage of referring to G. O. M. S. No. 634 Health and Family welfare Department dated June 11, 1992, by which central purchase system and constitution of central purchase committees came to be made by the State Government. In clause (vii) and clause (ix) of the said Government Order, the central purchase system and the central purchase committees have been set out, which reads as under: (vii) Central purchase system: The drugs and medicines to be supplied to the various Government hospitals and institutions shall be ordered centrally. A drug management group with the officers and staff of the Director of Medical Education, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine shall be constituted to implement the programme of central purchase system effectively. (ix) Central Purchase Committees: A Single Central Purchase Committee takes considerable time to finalise the rate for all the drugs. In view of the classification of drugs under "A" "B" and "C" lists, the tender finalisation will be made by separate committees headed by Director of Medical Education, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Director of Public Health and Preventing Medicine. The composition of the committee will be decided and orders issued separately. Notification for the tender will be made in a single advertisement with direction to secure the different tender forms from the competent authorities.
(2.) A perusal of those clauses does not inspire us to hold that the purchase is effected through the central purchase committees constituted by the State Government, who in turn distributes to any of the institutions referred to in G.O.P. No. 2280 dated April 30, 1973, namely, the 16 institutions mentioned therein. Therefore, unless there is any specific Government order or other directives of the State Government placed before the assessing authority or the appellate authorities including the Tribunal to the specific effect that the supplies to the District Leprosy Officer were in turn distributed to any of the institutions mentioned in G.O.P. No. 2280 dated April 30, 1973, no fault can be found with the conclusion of the lower authorities in holding that such supplies to the value of Rs. 6,18,126.60 were as a matter of fact, a sale effected to the Department of the Government. We are not therefore inclined to interfere with the said conclusion of the Tribunal. As far as the dispute raised relating to the sum of Rs. 3,77,389 is concerned, here again that was a consignment sale effected by the petitioner after availing of the benefit of form 17 under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act clearly sets out that after availing of the concessional rate of tax under sub -section (3), if the assessee does not sell the goods so manufactured, but despatches them to a place outside the State either by branch transfer or by transfer to an agent, by whatever name called, for sale, or in any other manner, except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter -State trade or commerce, the assessee is liable to pay in addition to the concessional rate of tax paid under sub -section (3), the tax at two percent of the value of the goods so purchased.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner initially availed of the concessional rate of tax based on form 17 and then subsequently there was a sale covered by section 3(4) of the Act and consequently the levy of two percent of tax under section 3(4) cannot be availed of and therefore, the challenge made in respect of the said levy cannot also be interfered with.;