by the learned Judges were different. According to z96z the Chief· Justice, the amendment and the Rule had State of Assani the effect of taxing sales in the course of inter-State v. trade or commerce and were, therefore, illegal. Ram Ramesh Labhaya, J., held that the sale to R. C. Dey and the Chandra Dey sale by him in Calcutta were separate sales, and that _ - the first sale was not in the course of inter-State trade Hidayatullah J. or commerce, and was taxable. He, however, held that though by s. 3, which is the charging section, sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were excluded from the ambit of the Act, this section remained only "a pious declaration", because its effect was not incorporated in the machinery section, namely, s. 15. According to the learned Judge, what was taxable under the Act was the net::-::.frnover of a registered dealer. The machinery section showed how the net turnover was to be ascertained, and it provided that to arrive at the net turnover, certain deduc- tions could be made from the gross turnover. In the original section, anything which was sold for resale was so excluded; but by the amendment, the exclusion was only in respect of the sale of goods for resale in the State. According to the learned Judge, if sales which did not lead to resale in the State were not excluded from the gross turnover, then the net turnover would comprehend such sales and, therefore, there was a taxation of sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Putting it briefly, while the learned Chief Justice felt that the amendment and the Rule directly affected inter-State trade or commerce, Ram Labhaya, J., held that they affected inter-State trade or commerce indirectly, inasmuch as sales outside the State were not excluded from the gross turnover.
