THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. MADURAI sourn INDIA CORPORATION lP) LTD

-Office in Madras and also to its branches. The method which was followed by the head office of the respondent was would place orders from Madras on Madurai Mills Limited pur suant to which the supplies would be made by the Madurai Mills Limited either to the respondent's head office or to its branches in accordance with the instructions given by the head office .. Where deliveries we1e made to the respondent inside the State the seller collected the tax due under the Act with reference to item 3 of the second Schedule to the Act. But in respect of deliverir.s made to the respondent's branches outsid.: the State, the Madurai Mills collected tax under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Central Act). During the year 1965-66 the respondent transferred to Madras State certain quantities of yarn from the stock so purchased at its branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala and sold the same to local dealers. The appellant thereupon called upon the respondent to produce accounts and certain other doc•1ments, on the assumption that the sales so effected were chargeable to tax as first sales in the Stat.:. The respondent objected to these proceedings on the ground that the ·sales were second sales not liable to tax and filed three writ petitions which are subject of these appeals. It w&s not disputed that the sales by the Madurai Mills the respondent in which deliveries were made to ·branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have been charged under the provisions of the Central Act. The only question in <:ontroversy is whether the sales made locally of yarn transferred to the Madras State from the stocks· of yarn in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala in respect ·of Sale's tax which had already been charged as inter states sales are again liable to IQ. as first sales in the State of Madras. In order to resolve this controversy, it would be useful notice the relevant provisions of the Act and Central Act. Section 3 (I) of the Act imposes a multi point tax, while sub-section . (2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-secti.:>n ( 1) in the case of sale of goods mentioned in the 6rst Schedule the tax under the Act shall be payable by a dealer at the rate and only at the point specified therein on the turnover in each year relating to such goods whatever may be the quantum of turnover in that year. Section 4 deals with levying of tax in respect of introduced · by declared goods, while section 4-A, which was Madras Act 6 of 1963, provides for refund of in certain cases. Section 6 'enjoins that the tax under the Act is addition to ·the tax under the Centrai Act or any C>the; Jaw. Sections ~ and 4-A are as under : - "4. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the tax under this Act shall be payable by a dealer A II c D E F G H • A B c D E F G H " TAMIL NADU v. MADURAI CORP. (laganmohan Reddy, 'J.) 11 (!v1L Al'>!'ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1845- J R47 of 1969. Appeals by certificate from the orders dated 3rd July 1967 c>f the High Court of Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 2684 to 2686 of 1966. S. T. De.111:, A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for the appel bnt. C. K. Daphtary, Gobind Das and Lilly Thomas, for the respon dent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by filed by the Constitution P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-These three appeals by certificate under Article 133 (1) ( c) of are against the judgment of the Madras High Court which allowed three Writ Petitions respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which it challenged the pro ceedings proposed to be taken by the Sales Tax Officer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) and the rules thereunder in respect of sale transactions assessments 1960-61 to 1964-65 and 1966-67 (upto October, 1966). The first petition was for quashing the summons issued under the Act and requiring the respondent to furnish certain vouchers of cotton yarn. branch transfer accounts and particulars relating to the years .1960-61 to 1964-65 !IJld 1966-67 (upto October, 1966). The second petition was for directing the appellant to forbear from taking any steps for verification and in disallowing the exemption for the second and subsequent sales of yarn pur chased by th_e respondent company from the Madurai Mills Limited in respect of the aforesaid period. The third petition prayed for the issue of m11nrl11muv to the appellant to forbear from disallowing the exemntion for the second and subsequent sales of yarn estimated at Rs. 5.08.247 /-for the assessment year 1965-66. The Hig1'. Court of Madras allowed all the three peti tions and quashed the proceedings as prayed for. The respondent is a re1>:istered dealer with its head office at Madras and branches in Madur~i. Raianalayam and Salem inside the State of Tamil Nadu and also in- certain nlaces in the States of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh includine Hyderabad. During the years 1960-61 to 1964-65 and 1966-67 unto October, 1966, it was dealing in various goods including cloth, yarn, etc. and was being assessed to taic under the Act on the turnover of business. The gross turnover of the respondent included sales of yarn by the Madurai Mills Limited to the respondent to its head • A II c I l F Ii- TAMIL NADU v. -MADUllAI COllP. (laganmohan Reddy, /.) on the sale or purchase insklo the state of declared goods at the rate and only at the point specified against each in the Second Schedule on the turnover in such gocds in each year, whatever be the quantum of turnover in that year." 4-A.-.( I) Where a tax has been levied and col lected under section 4 in respect of the sale or purchase of declan:d goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce the tax so levied and collected shall be refunded to s11ch person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Where a .tax at the point of last purchase the State has been levied and collected under this Act in respect of goods liable to tax at such point and where the said purchase ceases to be the last purchase in the State by reason of a subsequent purchase of such goods by another dealer in the State, the tax so levied and collected shall be. refunded to the dealer concerned in such n:v1nner and subject to such conditions as may be . prescribed." The declared goods are specified in· the second schedule to the Act to which cotto.n yarn, excluding cotton yarn waste, is liable to tax under the Act at the point of first sale in the State at the rate of 2 per cent. The Central Act defines 'declared goods' as those declared under Section 14 to be of special importance inter-State trade or commerce. Section 3 Jays down the princi· pies for determining when a sale or purchase of goods is said to · take place. inter-state trade gr Commerce under section 14(ii)(b) cotton yam, but not including cotton yam waste, has been declared to be of special inter-State trade or commerce. Section 1 S ensures that in the case of declared goods they should in all circumstances bear only a single burden at a specified stage and at the prescribed rate. This section as amended in 1958 is as follows : - In the course of importance "Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods be subject to the follow ing restrictions and conditions, namely :-. (a) The tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside State shall not exceed two per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage; 14 SUPUMB COUltT IU!POl.TS [1973] 2 s.c.•. ( b) .Where a tax has ben levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in fore: in that State." --..._ The High Court of Madras on the interpretation of the afore ·said provisions and having regard to the modus operandi of the respondent in respect of the inside sales or inter-state sales of cotton yam was of the view :-"Where the terms of a first sale are such that it may well be said to be an inside sale but it bea.ta also the characteristics of an inter-state sa!e, and, therefore, it has been taxed under the Central Act, that sale being physically a first sale inside the State out of which the inter-state sale has been carved out, it should follow that as the· ta"< levied on the inter state sale must prevail, there will be no tax liability on the same sale under the loca) Act on the ground that it is an inside sale". In this view it held that"when the goods pursuant to state sale have been delivered outside the State but brought back into the State and then sold, that sale cannot in fact or in law be re11arded as the first sale within the meaning of the secor.d sche dule to the local Act. It did not, however, think it necessary to · consider on the facts of the case "what the position will be when a sale is an inside sale withih the meaning of Section 4 of Central Act and is also an inter-state sale, because it occasioned the movement of the goods to another State and out of the goods delivered outside the State pursuant to the inter-state sale, a part has been brought into the. State and sold again as an inside sale, in the sense that every incident including delivery is in the State". In our view, this question does not arise because what we have to consider is having regard to the course of transactions of sale which bas not been traversed by the appellant, whether the sale by the Madurai Mills pursuant to the orders placed by the respon• dent, the cotton yam sold to. its branches in Andhra Pradesh and the State of Kerala in respect of which the price was paid in Madras, is an inside sale, and also a fint sale in the State. It apPears to us that when the cotton yam was sold to the respon dent in Madras as the goods were in the State of Madras when the contract of inter-state was entered into, it will be a first sale in the State. Once that sale bas taken place. and the goods were delivered in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, pursuant to that inter-state sale, there was no further sale to the resPon~ent when it transferred to its branches those goods which "have already been ~ubiect to tax in Madras nor caa such salea if they were sold in Madras be subject to tax. A c E F G II • A B c TAMIL NADU v. MADURAI COllP. (laganmohan Reddy, I.) IS . Whethet the provisions of Section 1 S makes an inroad into local Act the texture of the local law, so that section 6 of the will have to be read subject to and in conformity with the proYi sions of section 1 S and the policy underlining that section and whether section 6 will be inapplicable to sales of declared goods. need not be considered in this case because we arc clearly of the view that the sale of cotton yam sold to the branches of the res pondent in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala though they were inter state sales of declared goods, were the first sales inside the State of Tamil Nadu and that being so if those gOods are transferred to Madras and sold in Madras, they are exempt from being taxed again since they have already been subjected to tax on the sale iilside the State. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusions of the Madras High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. K.B.N. Appeal dismiued