High CourtsSingle Bench(1953) 07 KL CK 0017

A.V. George and Company Ltd. vs Sales Tax Officer and Another

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 July 1953 · Citation: AIR 1953 Ker 556

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.S. Subramanya Iyer, J
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No. 36 of 1953

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 341 words

Subramania Iyer, J.—This is an application presented by Messrs. A.V. George and Company Ltd., Kottayam, who are dealers in rubber sheets. They sell to customers outside the State. The transactions on account of which the assessment in question was made relate to the period from 30-5-1950 to 31-3-1951. The assessment was made on the ground that the transactions amount to inter-State sales. The goods were stated to be in the State at the time. The Petitioner''s main plea is that the sales really took place outside the State and that under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) to Article 286 of the Constitution they are immune from assessment to sales-tax. The Assessing Officer who passed the order in his counter-affidavit presented before this Court says that the plea based upon Article 286(1)(a) and the explanation thereto, was not presented before him for consideration.

It is clear, however, that the Petitioner must have had his case at the time of assessment, whether it was put forward so very clearly before the Assessing Officer or not. If the sales were outside the State so as to bring the case within the ambit of Clause (a) of Article 286(1) or even if the sales were not outside the State but within, nevertheless for the purpose of consumption in Anr. State in India so as to bring the case within the ambit of the explanation to Article 286(1), the sales would be immune from assessment to sales-tax. If however the frets are such as to bring the case within the ambit of Clause (1) of Article 286 , then the sales are liable to tax.

2.

The facts of the case have not been ascertained and this Court is not therefore in a position to say under which category the case falls.

3.

In the result the order sought to be quashed has to be quashed. The case will go back to the Sales-tax Officer concerned who will deal with it in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs in this Original Petition.