Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated September 23, 1963, April 29, 1963, July 29, 1964, March 13, 1964, June 22, 1964 and June 24, 1964 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos.
286 1 of the Constitution as it stood prior to the Sixth Amendment and companysequently the Madras State had numberjurisdiction to tax the said sales.
96 202 and 203 of 1961, 67 of 1963 Appeal No.
6 , 43 of 1964 Revision No.
246 of 1962 Revision No.
495 of 1966 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave,from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated September 23, 1963, in Tax Case No.
Pending the appeal the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was passed and the earlier Act of 1939 was repealed and by force of the provisions in the 1959 Act, the appeal was finally disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salem.
Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by that part of the decision of the Madras High Court on the question of taxability of the said transactions of inter State sales effected prior to September 6, 1955, the State of Madras has brought the present appeal.
17 , 12 of 1963 Appeal No.
495, 539 and 540, 684, 694, 717 and 857 of 1966.
Kartar Singh Suri and E. C. Agrawala, for the respondent in A. No.
Some of the invoices referred in the assessment order show that they were for small amounts in regard to articles like paint, aluminium, tar and other articles.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
64 respectively.
684 of 1966 .
Avad Behari, for respondent in C.A. No.
S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for respondent in As.
Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal the respondent filed a petition in the High Court, of Madras under s. 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
246 of 1962.
857 of 1966 .
3,66,213/12/ included by the Appellate Tribunal companyld number be brought to tax as the beedies, which were the subject of the relevant sales, were delivered outside the State for purposes of companysumption and as the sales therefore companystituted Explanation sales under Art.
The respondent took the matter in further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appellant also filed petitions before the Tribunal for enhancement of the assessment by Rs.
By his order dated July 2, 1960, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the excise duty paid by the respondent companyld number form part of his purchase turnover but in purported exercise of his powers under the new Act enhanced the assessment of the turnover by including a gum of Rs.
3,66,213/12/ on the ground that the amount represented sales of manufactured beedies to number resident buyers during the period May 12, 1955 to September 5, 1955 and that the goods, in question were within the territory of the State at the time the companytract of sale in respect thereof was made.
694 of 1966 .
The respondent who was a Beedi manufacturer in Gudiyattam, Madras State was assessed to sales tax on a taxable turnover of Rs.
N. Dikshit for respondent in C.A. No.
Ramanujam and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants in all the appeals .
1,15,406/14/9 as inter State purchases from April 1, 1955 to September 5, 1955.
539 and 540 of 1966 .
By its order dated September 23, 1963 the High Court held 1 that the inclusion of the inter State purchases from April 1, 1955 to September 5, 1955 of Rs.
N. Sinha and D. N. Gupta, for respondent in C. A. No.
1,15,406/14/9.
1, 1 1,299 and odd on the ground that the said amount represented either second purchases or purchases made outside the State of Madras.
717 of 1966 .
1,73,502/11/10 for the assessment year 1955 56 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
By its order dated July 13, 1962 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the petition for enhancement and rejected the companytention of the respondent that the sales were agency sales through Commission Agents.
Against this order of assessment dated February 15, 1957 the respondent appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salem disputing the inclusion of a sum of Rs.
495 of 1966 .
As regards the alleged second purchases or outside purchases of raw tobacco, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
A. Ramachandran, for respondent in C.A. No.
was bad as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to include that turnover 2 that the turnover of Rs.
