V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has filed this revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. THE dispute relates for the period June, 1965 to March 31, 1966. THE sale of Rs. 5,65,080 was claimed not liable to tax as the assessee had purchased those goods from outside the State of Rajasthan and has effected subsequent inter-State sale thereof and in that transaction the "c" form was not issued to the seller of the goods from whom purchases were made by the assessee. In support of the claim under section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it was found that the assessee has not furnished even "c" form in respect thereof.
(2.) THE provisions of section 9 read as under : " 9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties.- (1) THE tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, whether such sales fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of section 3, shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by the Government of accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), in the State from which the movement of the goods, commenced : Provided that, in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another, being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods, the tax shall, where such sale does not fall within sub-section (2) of section 6, be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or, as the case may be, could have obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods. " The assessee has raised the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated September 30, 1986 : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the State of Rajasthan was the appropriate State within the meaning of section 9 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act for collecting the second inter-State sales tax when neither 'c' forms of the State of Rajasthan were utilized for the purpose of declared commodity, i. e. , iron and steel nor the same could have been utilized because the purchases did not fall within the meaning of section 8 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, but fell within the purview of section 8 (2) (d) of the Central Sales Tax Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant will be liable to pay tax under the proviso to section 9 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and in also holding that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act ? (iii) Whether the honourable Tribunal was justified in holding that on declared commodity Central sales tax can be levied at more than on stage ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the honourable Tribunal was justified in reversing the judgment of Special Bench of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated December 28, 1978 ?" The assessing authority has levied tax on the sale of Rs. 5,65,080 at the rate of 2 per cent since the sale was in respect of iron and steel. An appeal was preferred against this order to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer, wherein relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Nandagopal Chetty [1968] 22 STC 290 held that the transaction was not liable to tax. The order was reversed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The assessee has not issued any "c" form and, therefore, appropriate State for the purposes of levy of tax could or not be State of Rajasthan has to be decided. After effecting purchases from outside the State of Rajasthan, the assessee has endorsed various receipts in favour of Ganon Dunkerly & Company, Kota and sale was effected by transfer of documents. The transaction, therefore, was a subsequent inter-State sale. "c" forms were neither received from M/s. Ganon Dunkerly of Kota nor submitted before the assessing authority. The amendment under section 9 (1) in the proviso "or as the case may be could have obtained" was made with retrospective effect by the Central Sales Tax Amendment Act 28 of 1969. The object of this amendment was that even if in respect of a subsequent inter-State sale, while purchasing goods from a dealer from outside the State, "c" forms were not utilized or obtained or used, then a dispute may arise as to which will be the appropriate State for levy of tax. The object of inserting the words "or as the case may be could have obtained" were in order to eliminate that possibility where even it could have been submitted that since "c" forms were not obtained for the purchases of goods from outside the State, no State will have the jurisdiction. This amendment was made by the Central Sales Tax Act No. 28 of 1969 with retrospective effect. The decision which was given by the Madras High Court in Nandagopal Chetty's case [1968] 22 STC 290, was in respect of interpretation of the provisions of section 9 (1) read with its proviso when the amendment was not brought into force. The power to collect the Central sales tax has been specified in section 9 (1) and could be exercised by the Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 9. The tax is leviable under the main clause by the Government of India in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced. After the movement of goods, if the assessee makes subsequent inter-State sale, then the proviso comes into the picture. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 provides that in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another, being a sale subsequent tot he first sale in respect of the same goods, the tax shall, where such sale does not fall within sub-section (2) of section 6, be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or, as the case may be could have obtained, the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in accordance with the purchases of such goods. It is not disputed that the assessee is a registered dealer and he could have obtained "c" form only from the State of Rajasthan where he was registered. Even if "c" forms have not been obtained, the proviso to section 9 (1) confers power on the State of Rajasthan being an agent of the Government of India to collect tax, if any leviable under the provisions of the Act on a subsequent inter-State sale. It is also an admitted fact that the case does not fall under sub-section (2) of section 6 as required declaration forms were not submitted and, therefore, the liability of tax can be fastened on the assessee by the State of Rajasthan. The Sales Tax Tribunal therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the State of Rajasthan has the jurisdiction to levy tax in respect of subsequent inter-State sale for which necessary declaration forms as required under section 6 (2) have not been submitted. The other points as mentioned in the revision petition have not been pressed and therefore, no decision is being given thereon. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. . ;