M V GOVINDARAJU CHETTY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HASSAN CIRCLE HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the writ petitions mentioned above, all the petitions of 1965 and petitions Nos. 1256 to 1258 and 2121 to 2127 of 1966 have been admitted and notice served on the respondent. The respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The remaining petitions of 1966, namely, Nos. 2724 and 2727 to 2733 are awaiting admission.

(3.) The principal contention on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases is that the turnover subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could not have been rightly so subjected in view of the clear declaration of the law in three subsequent decisions of this Court reported in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583), Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597) and Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davangere ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 658), and the rulings of the Supreme Court upon appeal in those cases reported in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231), The State of Mysore v. Mysore Silk House ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 309) and The State of Mysore v. Karnatak Coffee Company ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 311). That such is the position upon merits is not disputed. The turnover was in respect of certain articles like raw wool, cardamom, sikai, coffee and areca, subjected to a single point levy of sales tax under the State Act at the purchase point except in the case of coffee where the point is sale point. Upon the facts of these cases the assessee concerned was not liable to sales tax under the State Act. Consequently in the light of the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court mentioned above, he could not have been made liable for tax under the Central Act either.