AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Kochu Thommen, Ag. C.J.
The assessee is a registered dealer. On the strength of C form it purchased goods in Tamil Nadu and brought them to Kerala and subsequently transported them to Bombay allegedly for the purpose of sale. Penalty has been imposed upon it u/s 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the reason that the goods brought to Kerala were not sold in Kerala, but they were sent to Bombay for the purpose of sale there. According to the Revenue, the assessee violated the terms on which C form was issued and accordingly it failed to make use of the goods for the stated purpose.
Section 8 of the Act reads :
"8. Rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.--(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce--
(a) . . .
(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government, goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3) ;
shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover.
(2) . . .
(3) The goods referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)--
(a) . . .
(b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him..............."
It is not disputed that the goods were purchased by the assessee in Tamil Nadu for the purpose of sale and after bringing them to Kerala it transported them to Bombay for the purpose of sale. What is contended is that the sale should have been effected in Kerala and in so far as it was not done, the assessee has violated the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 thereby attracting the penal provisions of Section 10(d).
The Tribunal has, in our view, correctly stated that, in the absence of a specific provision under the Act or the Rules requiring that the goods purchased by the assessee outside Kerala on the strength of C form should be sold within the State of Kerala itself, the penal provision is not attracted. We agree with this conclusion. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the contention of the State on the question of penalty.
The State has raised certain other contentions which, in our view, do not require to be dealt with in the present proceeding as they do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.