P K PABDUL HARKEEN SAHIB Vs. MYSORE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in this petition is covered by the decision of a Bench of this Court (of which I was a Member) in C.R.Ps. Nos. 964 and 1393 of 1961 (Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C. 583). The learned Government Pleader tried to persuade us that the decision of this Court in that case requires reconsideration. After having heard him carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the above decision is correct.

(2.) The disputed transactions in the present case are admittedly sale transactions. The sales in question were effected in the course of inter-State transactions and therefore the same is governed by the provisions of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus far, there is no dispute. It is also admitted that section 8(1) of the Act is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Both the parties are agreed that the transactions in question, if liable to be taxed, have to be taxed under section 8(2) of the Act. section 8(2) of the Act provides :

(3.) In C.R.Ps. Nos. 964 and 1393 of 1961 (Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C. 583), this Court had to decide the true scope of the expression "at the same rates and in the same manner". This Court also had to consider the true meaning of the words "notwithstanding that he (dealer), in fact, may not be so liable under that law." Therein this Court came to the conclusion that only such transactions as could have been taxed under the State law can be taxed under section 8(2) and not other transactions. Admittedly under the State law only purchase transactions could be taxed. Therefore, the sale transactions with which we were concerned in that case as in the present case would not have come within the mischief of that law. Hence section 8(2) was held to be inapplicable to the facts of that case.