involved in the inter-State sales of Rice and Broken Rice, the Commercial Tax Officer has allowed deduction of central sales tax collected from the aggregate of the sale price of rice and broken rice sold in inter-State trade. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) while revising the assessment observed that the tax worked out as per the formula on the total interstate sales of rice and broken rice on the central sales tax shown to have been collected cannot be deducted from the turnover as the tax paid on corresponding paddy has been granted rebate under Section 15© of the Act. According to him, the tax qualified for exemption from central sales tax collection is only to the extent of tax on rice and broken rice, minus tax rebate granted on corresponding paddy. In fact, the figures given in that case show that the Assessing Officer allowed deduction of tax element of Rs.7,59,975/- from out of the central sales tax component. But the revisional authority took the view that the dealer is liable to pay central sales tax of Rs.33,453/-, and therefore, he is entitled for deduction only to that extent and therefore there is excess deduction of Rs.7,26,522/-. When the said order of revision was assailed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also took the same pedantic view, expressed through the Departmental Member of the Tribunal. The Tribunal totally failed to take note of the already existing decisions of this Court, which are binding on the Tribunal, apart from ignoring its own earlier decision rendered in Badarinadh Rice Mill’s case (2 supra), where the Tribunal has even followed the decisions of this Court. The observations of the Tribunal show that the appellant claimed a larger deduction than the amount due by way of central sales tax to the Department. Therefore, such claim was not the intention of the parliament and thus held “The Parliament intended to grant the benefit of exemption only to the extent of central sales tax component of Rs.33,453/.” The Tribunal has even gone to the extent of holding that the dealer in that case had collected in excess of the liability of central sales tax. Therefore, even the dealer was liable for penalty. Though nowhere it was held that the dealer has collected tax in excess of 4% prescribed under the schedule, where such sales are accompanied by the C-Forms. The Tribunal has also gone to the extent to construe the expression aggregate of the sale price as net aggregate of the sale prices on the premise that if the provision is not construed in such a manner, it may lead to manifestly unjust result. The term net aggregate of the sale price was not at all even defined under the provisions of the Act. But the Tribunal had gone to the extent of equating it with aggregate of the sale price. The said interpretation given by the Tribunal is clearly against the plain and simple language contained in the relevant provisions.
