- (1.) THIS is a revision preferred by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer Alwar against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) Jaipur dated 5. 7. 61. The circumstances leading to this revision are that the opposite party M/s Babulal Vishambhar Dayal Kathoomar were assessed to sales-tax by the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer Alwar on a total turn-over of Rs. 5,100/- and were also charged the penalty of Rs. 5/ -. The break-up of this turn-over was made up of the sale of the imported goods as well as ornaments. The sale of imported goods was valued at only Rs. 1,100/ -. The remaining sum of Rs. 4000/- was made up of ornaments not so imported. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur. He questioned the assessment on both these sums. The assessment of sales-tax on the sale of ornaments worth Rs. 4000/-was attacked on the ground that he had purchased them from registered dealers in Rajasthan itself after paying tax. THIS plea was rejected by the learned Dy. Commissioner on the ground that the sale of gold and silver ornaments was taxable at the last point and it was the assessee who had sold them to the consumers and he would therefore be treated to be the last dealer for the purposes of taxation. As for the tax on the other amount of Rs. 1100/- imposed on imported goods, the assessment was contested on the ground that the total amount of imports did not exceed Rs. 5000/- as required by law. He relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in (1957) 8 S. T. C. 429. The learned Dy. Commissioner accepted this plea and held that when the imported goods did not exceed Rs. 5000/-as required vide sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he could not be taxed for this amount and he set aside the assessment made accordingly. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE ground urged on behalf of the Assessing Authority is that the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling relied on did not apply to Rajasthan, the provisions in the two Acts being different. THE emphasis is laid on the difference in the definition of the expression "turn-over" given in the Acts of the two States. We have looked into the provisions of the two Acts. "taxable turn over" has been defined in sec. 2 (p) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tex Act, 1950 as follows : "taxable turn-over' for specified period means that part of dealer's turnover for such period which remains after deducting therefrom (i) the sale of goods declared tax free u/s 4 without payment of fees; (ii) the sale of goods declared taxation-free u/s 4 (3) with payment of fees; (iii) 'turn-over' of goods for which no rate of taxation has been notified or which have already been subjected to sales-tax under this Act; (iv) All such other deductions as may be prescribed in the Rules made under this Act; (v) 2 per/centum of balance remaining after making all the above deductions". Sec. 2 (q) there defines "turn-over" as - 'turn-over' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either sold or supplied for the payment received in respect of a contract by a dealer. . . . . . . . . " Sec. 3 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act' 50, which is the charging section, referred to above, reads as follows : "subject to the provisions of this Act every dealer whose turn-over in the previous year in respect of sales, supplies of goods exceeds: - (a) in the case of a dealer who imports goods into Madhya Bharat, Rs. 5000/-; (b) in the case of manufacturer Rs. 5000/-; and (c) in the case of any other Rs. 12000/-; shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on his taxable turn-over in respect of sales or supplies of goods affected in Madhya Bharat from the 1st of May 1950. . . . . . . . " The above sections have been reproduced from the S. T. C. Report referred to above. As against it, charging sec. 3 (1) of the Act reads, "incidence of taxation : (1) subject to the provisions of this Act every dealer whose turn-over in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeds - (a) in the case of importer of goods Rs. 5000/-; (b) in the case of the dealer Rs. 12000/-; and (c) in the case of manufacturer Rs. 10000/- shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on his taxable turn-over' in respect of sales or supplies of goods affected from the date of the commencement of this Act; The expression 'turn-over' has been defined vide sec. 2 (t) of the Act as meaning : "the aggregate of the amount of sale-price received or receivable by a dealer in respect of the sale or supply of goods or in respect to the sale or supply of goods in the carrying out of any contract; Sec. 2 (s) of the Act defines : 'taxable-turnover' to mean, "that part of turn-over which remains after deducting therefrom the aggregate amount of the proceeds of sale of goods (i) on which no tax is leviable under this Act; (ii) which have already been subjected to tax under this Act; (iii) which have been sold to persons outside the State for consumption outside the State; (iv) which are taxable at the last point and have been sold to registered dealers for the purposes of re-sale within the State". A very bare comparison of the provisions in the two Acts will go to convince that there is no material difference between them. The 'taxable-turnover' is in fact defined in the same term in the two Acts. So is the term 'turn-over'. The 'charging' of the tax has also been provided similarly in the two Acts, difference if any, is only in the limits prescribed for various trades. The learned counsel for the Assessing Authority, Shri Dalu Ram has laid emphasis on the point that in the Madhya Bharat Act with reference to the charge-ability it has been laid down to be "a dealer who imports goods into Madhya Bharat", when in pur Act it is only described as "an importer of goods". On this basis it is being urged that even in the case of a dealer importing goods his total taxable turn-over on account of other trades, if any, followed by him which are liable to tax under the provisions of sec. 3 (1) have to be added together for arriving at the limits of incidence of taxation. What is meant to be conveyed is that it is total 'turn-over' of a dealer importing goods that is to be considered for the purposes of the charging of the tax and not only the value of the goods imported. In other words, it is being urged that it is the total amount of the taxable turn-over from whatever sources or whatever classes it be that is provided to be assessed to tax and not the turn-overs separately as importer, as manufacturer, or as any other class of dealer. Support is being sought for this view in the definition of "importer of goods" as defined vide sec. 2 (1) of the Act, which reads to mean : "a dealer who brings or causes to bring to the State any goods from outside the State for the purpose of processing, manufacturing or selling within the State". What is the definition of 'importer of goods' provided in the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act referred to above, has not been reproduced in the S. T. C. case referred to above, nor has it been possible to find it out otherwise for want of the availability of a copy of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. This is, not, however, going to make any change in the chargeability of tax as provided vide sec. 3 (1) of the Act. This provision of law is intended to tax a person dealing in the import of goods only if his 'turnover' exceeds Rs. 5000/-in this business alone. Similarly, it is intended to tax a manufacturer only if his 'turn-over' exceeds Rs. 10000/- in the line of manufacturing alone. So is the case of any other kind of dealer. He can be made liable to pay tax only if his dealings in the particular trade exceed Rs. 12000/ -. The employing of the word, "processing" and "manufacturing" within then state in the definition of the expression "importer of goods" does not make any difference to this situation. These words have been used to make any "importer of goods" liable to pay tax even if he sells them after processing or manufacturing and not in the same form as they were imported. But he is liable to pay tax upon his selling imported goods of the value exceeding Rs. 5000/- alone. In case he processes or manufactures or does both and then sells the goods so imported, he would be liable to pay tax as a dealer in the form of a "manufacturer" only when the sales so made exceed Rs. 10000/ -. This would be clear from the definition of "manufacturer" in sec. 2 (k) of the Act. This liability would fall on him in case the taxable limit exceeds, even if the taxable limit as 'importer of goods' be not exceeded. 'a dealer' other than 'manufacturer' or 'importer of goods' would be similarly liable to pay tax as soon as the limit as such exceeds Rs. 12000/- even if the limit as 'importer of goods' or 'manufacturer' does not exceed the limit prescribed. The liability cannot be fixed by adding together the taxable turn-over within three categories stated in sec. 3 (1) of the Act. It is to be fixed separately for each class of business or trade specified therein. In short, it may be observed that for the purposes of incidence of taxation or chargeability to pay tax, the charging section in the Act (sec. 3 (i)) classifies the persons liable to pay tax in three classes, e. g. (1) Importers, (2) Manufacturers and (3) Dealers. The class No. 1 shall be liable to pay tax only when the turn-over of that particular trade exceeds Rs. 5000/ -. Class No. 2 shall be similarly liable only when the turn-over in that particular trade exceeds Rs. 10,000/ -. The 3rd category shall be liable to pay tax only when the turn-over exceeds Rs. 12,000/ -. It would be only then that the ''taxable-turnover' shall be worked out as per provisions of the Act. Such a taxable turnover' shall be worked out separately for each sales of business or trade as provided above and not by adding them all or a few of them together. In case any other interpretation is put on the provisions of the Act, the result would be very anomalus. A person dealing in imported goods shall be taxed without importing goods worth even one rupee, if he manufactures certain articles and sells to the tune of Rs. 4999/-or odd so as to make the total of Rs. 5000/ -. This would be so even when as a manufacturer, the liability to pay tax would not fall on him. This would be just dis-couraging persons from entering into any trade whatsoever which situation the Act could never be intended to bring in. If it was meant to tax each and every transaction of sale or supply without any limit whatsoever, there was no need of prescribing the limits in Sec. 3 (i) of the Act in three categories. A single limit would have been prescribed and all persons could have been grouped into only the expression "dealers". A taxing statute must state very clearly if it was intended to tax each and every trade or transaction to whatever category it might belong as soon as it crossed the prescribed limit. In the absence of such a clear language this fiscal enactment of assessing to tax cannot be interpreted to mean this. Now, we may revert to the examination of the (1957) 8 S. T. C. 429, Mahabir Prasad VS. B. S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Indore, relied upon by the learned Dy. Commissioner and assailed on behalf of the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer here, with the contention that the facts of the case did not apply to the present case. The first ground taken was the difference in the provisions of the two Acts which has been examined already in the earlier part of this judgment. On facts also, the case is not distinguishable. There the assessee was a dealer in bicycle spare parts which he,imported from outside the State for sale within the State. He also had a 'pan-shop'. The Assessing Authority proceeded to tax the assessee by combining the sales of cycle-shop as well as 'pan-shop'. The stand taken against it was the same as in the present case that the import of cicyles spare parts did not exceed the limit of Rs. 5000/- prescribed by the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act. Both the cases, Mahabir Prasad VS. B. S. Gupta (1957) 8 S. T. C. 429 and (1951) 2 S. T. C. 44 Ayodhya Prasad Vs. The Crown, referred to and relied therein are therefore authority for taking that for taxing a person for the importing of goods the quantity of turnover must exceed Rs. 5000/- exclusively and he cannot be taxed as 'importer of goods' by combining the turn-over of imports with that of the goods manufactured or obtained locally. Nor can a dealer be taxed to sales-tax under the Act if he is an importer, manufacturer or dealer in any other kind of goods on the total of his turn-over in all these three trades, if the "turn-overs" separately for them do not exceed the limits of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- as laid down respectively therefor by sec. 5 (i) of the Act. There is thus no force in this revision, which is hereby rejected. .;