# STATE OF KERALA v. COCHIN COAL CO. LTD., COCHIN

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 415
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-08-31
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-kerala-v-cochin-coal-co-ltd-cochin-4109
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
p
Q
H
STATE OF KERALA
v.
COCHIN COAL CO. LTD., COCHIN
August 31, 1967
(K. N.
WANCHOO, CJ., R. S.
BACHAWAT, V.
RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Travancore..Cochin General Sales T""' Aet {H of 194&-M.Jr,
1125), s. 26-Inter-State sales during 1955-56-Sales within TravancoreCochin State-If liable to sales-tax-Constitution of India, 1950, Mt.
286(2) before the Sixth Amendment and Sales Tax Laws Validation
Act (7 of 1956)-Effect of.
Before the Constitution came into force, the Travancore-Cochin
General Sales Tax Act, M.E. 1125, levied a tax on sale of goods and
inter-State sales were not exempt from such taxation. By Act 12
of 1951, s. 26 was· inserted in the Act to bring the Act into line with
Art. 286 of the Constitution as it then stood, and imposed a ban on
the levy of tax on inter-State sales after March 31, 1951, unless
Parliament otherwise provided under Art. 286(2). On September 6,
1955, this Court held in The Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. case, [1955]2
S.C.R. 603, that inter-State sales could not be taxed by a State, even
if they were inside sales with respect to that State. This led to the
passing, by Parliament. of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956,
for the purpose of validating the levy and collection of taxeii on
inside
sales
between
April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955. In
Sundararamier & Co. case [1958] S.C.R. 1422 this Court decided
that s. 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939--which was in
μari materia with s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act-<>perated to
impose a tax, subject to authorisation by Parliament as provided in
Art. 286(2); in other words it was a piece of legislation imposing tax
in praesenti but with a condition annexed that it was to come into
force in futuro as and when Parliament so provided; and this view
was re-affirmed by this Court in the Cochin Coal· Co.'s case [1961]
~ S.C.R. 219) with respect to s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act.
[ 418C; 422 B-F]
.
The respondent-assessee was a dealer, not resident in Travancore-Cochin State. It supplied coal to consumers within the State,
the last of the transactions being on September 4, 1955.
On the question whether the inter-State sales during assessment year 1955-56, were taxable .under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Act, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High
Court held in favour of the assessee.
In appeal by the State to this Court,
Held: The ban imposed by s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act,
having been lifted by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, sales'tax
could be levied and collected by the State for the period covered by
that Act. The Amendment to the section by Kerala Act 12 of 1957 did
not fall to be considered in the present case inasmuch as the Amend-·
ing Act was only prospective and did not operate to invalidate any
levy of tax imposed before. The question as to whether the State of
Kerala had legislative competence to amend s. 26 by Kerala Act 9
of 1962 which purported to validate, the levy and collection of
taxes before September 6,.1955 is also irrelevant for the purpose of
this appeal. [422G: 423A-D]
J.{S5SC I-(•) 13
U6
SUPllEKE OOUIIT RBPORTS
[1968] 1 8,0,L

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
p
Q
H
STATE OF KERALA
v.
COCHIN COAL CO. LTD., COCHIN
August 31, 1967
(K. N.
WANCHOO, CJ., R. S.
BACHAWAT, V.
RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Travancore..Cochin General Sales T""' Aet {H of 194&-M.Jr,
1125), s. 26-Inter-State sales during 1955-56-Sales within TravancoreCochin State-If liable to sales-tax-Constitution of India, 1950, Mt.
286(2) before the Sixth Amendment and Sales Tax Laws Validation
Act (7 of 1956)-Effect of.
Before the Constitution came into force, the Travancore-Cochin
General Sales Tax Act, M.E. 1125, levied a tax on sale of goods and
inter-State sales were not exempt from such taxation. By Act 12
of 1951, s. 26 was· inserted in the Act to bring the Act into line with
Art. 286 of the Constitution as it then stood, and imposed a ban on
the levy of tax on inter-State sales after March 31, 1951, unless
Parliament otherwise provided under Art. 286(2). On September 6,
1955, this Court held in The Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. case, [1955]2
S.C.R. 603, that inter-State sales could not be taxed by a State, even
if they were inside sales with respect to that State. This led to the
passing, by Parliament. of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956,
for the purpose of validating the levy and collection of taxeii on
inside
sales
between
April 1, 1951 and September 6, 1955. In
Sundararamier & Co. case [1958] S.C.R. 1422 this Court decided
that s. 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939--which was in
μari materia with s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act-<>perated to
impose a tax, subject to authorisation by Parliament as provided in
Art. 286(2); in other words it was a piece of legislation imposing tax
in praesenti but with a condition annexed that it was to come into
force in futuro as and when Parliament so provided; and this view
was re-affirmed by this Court in the Cochin Coal· Co.'s case [1961]
~ S.C.R. 219) with respect to s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act.
[ 418C; 422 B-F]
.
The respondent-assessee was a dealer, not resident in Travancore-Cochin State. It supplied coal to consumers within the State,
the last of the transactions being on September 4, 1955.
On the question whether the inter-State sales during assessment year 1955-56, were taxable .under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Act, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High
Court held in favour of the assessee.
In appeal by the State to this Court,
Held: The ban imposed by s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Act,
having been lifted by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, sales'tax
could be levied and collected by the State for the period covered by
that Act. The Amendment to the section by Kerala Act 12 of 1957 did
not fall to be considered in the present case inasmuch as the Amend-·
ing Act was only prospective and did not operate to invalidate any
levy of tax imposed before. The question as to whether the State of
Kerala had legislative competence to amend s. 26 by Kerala Act 9
of 1962 which purported to validate, the levy and collection of
taxes before September 6,.1955 is also irrelevant for the purpose of
this appeal. [422G: 423A-D]
J.{S5SC I-(•) 13
U6
SUPllEKE OOUIIT RBPORTS
[1968] 1 8,0,L
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 380 of
A
1966.
Appeal by. special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 16, 1963' of the Kerala High Court in Tax Revision Case
No. 17 of 1962.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and A. G. Pi;dissery, for the
B
appellant.
0. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhartar and 0. C. Mathur, .for the
respondent.
Sardar Bahadur, for the intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, I. This appeal, by special leave, is from a judgment
and order of the High Court of Kerala dated August 16, 1963
pa~ in Tax Revision Case No. 17 of 1962 filed by the respondent, Cochin Coal Co. Ltd. against the order of the Sales Tax
Appellant Tribunal, Trivandrum.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
follows. The respondent-assessee was a non-resident dealer (not
resident in Travancore-Cochin) during the year
1955-56.
The
period we are concerned with here ends on September 4, 1955.
It used to supply coal to consumers in T1'81Vancore Cochin State
which later became Kerala. For the assessment year in question
(1955-56) the assessee was asked to file statements. showing its
turnover of supplies of coal made to purchasers in the State of
Kerala and in reply to the notice under s. I 2(2)(b) of. the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act, it stated that the Sales of coal
to steamers arriving and berthed in Travancore Cochin State
waters were not taxable because the goods were stored by the
steamers for consumption on the high seas. The assessee however
did not quc:Stion its liability to pay tax in respect of supplies made
to other consumers in the State of Kerala. On March 7, 1959 the
Sales Tax Officer, Circle I, Mattancherry assessed the respondent
on a turnover of Rs. 1,29,352/-. The respondent filed an appeal
therefrom and the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income
Tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam allowed the appeal in part and
reduced the turnover by omitting the portion of it after 6th ,Sep,
!ember, 1955. In the·result, the assessee's turnover was reduced
to Rs. 69,407 /-. There was a further appeal to the Kerala Sales'
c
D
E
r
G
Tax Appella.te Tribunal. This was disposed of on January 2, 1962
in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the sales being
inter.State sales were, according to the decision of the Kerala, High
Court in T. R. Cs. l, 2 and 3 of 1961 (reported in 14 Sales Tax
Cases 850) not taxable. The Tribunal held that s. 26(1)(b) of the
General Sales Tax Act, as amended bys. 13(ii) of Act 12 of 1957,
R
prohibited the taxation of inter-State sales after March 31, 1951.
The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultqral Income Tax and Sales
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
R
U:llAU v. COClllN COAL co. LTD. (Mitter, i.)
-41~
Tax Central Zone, Ernakulam, went up to the Wgh Court of
Kerala under s. 15-B(l) of the Act. The questiofi of law raised
for decision by the High Court was,
"Whether in the light of the amending Act 9 of 1962 the
finding of the Tribunal is ~brrect?"
In rejecting. the application, the High Court reasoned as
follows.:- .
()) Central Act 7 of 1956 was intended· to validate Slate
laws imposing or authorising the imposition of taxC11
on the sale or purchase of goods in the course of interState trade or commerce.
(2) This Court has decided in the State of Kera/a and
others v. Tire Cochin Coal Co .. Ltd.(') that s. 26 of the
General Sales Tax Act. 1125 imposed a ta!X on the sale
or purchase of goods in the course Of inter-State trade or
commerce and taxation of such sales during the period
between 1-4-1951 and 6-9-1955 was validated by the
above Central Act.
(3) S. 26 of the Goneral Sales TalX Aot, 1125 prior to
its amendment by Act 12 of ·1957 was in pari materia
with s. 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act which·
came up for consideration in the case of M. P. V.
Sundararamier & Co. and others v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and another('). The Supreme Court held that
s. 22 of the Madras Act "intended to authorise taxation
of sales falling within the Explanation, subject to authorisation by Parliament as provided in Art. 286(2)".
(4) Act 12 of I 957 raised the controversy as to whether
Central Act 7 of 1956 could be considered as sabaging
the levy of tax on inter-State sates after the amendment
introduced in s. 26. According to the decis;on in T.R.
Cs. I, 2 and 3 of 1961 inter-State sales after 31st March,
1951 were not taxable.
(5) The Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 made
substantial changes as regards levy of tax in inter-State
sales. As a result of the amendment of Art. 269 taxes
on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers,
where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce were to be levied and collected by the Government of India and it was for Parliament to formulate principles for determining when a
sale or purchase of gOods takes place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce.
(6) The Validating Act 9 of 1962 was enacted subsequent to the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act
which came into force on I Ith September 1956. In
(1) [1961J 2 s.c.R. 219.
(2) [1958J s.c.R. 1422: -------
1968 J 1 s.c.~.
view of the amendment of the Constitution in 1956 the
Legislature of Kerala had not the competence to pass any
·1egislation on the subject of inter.State sales whether
prospective or retrospective or both in the year 1962
with the result that the State could not call in aid the
provisions of Act 9 of 1962 to tax inter.State sales.
The appellant's case was argued by the learned So'icitor
General. One E. J. Mathew was allowed to intervene in this
matter: In our view, the High Court failed to construe the effect
of the relevant statutes and apply the decisions of this Court ren·
dered before they heard the matter. Proceeding chronologically,
the legal position developed as follows.
Before the Constitution came into force, The T ravancore
Cochin State General Sales Tax Act, XI of 1125 levied a tax on
sale of goods under s. 3 of the Act. The tax was to be paid by
the dealer on his turnover in each year. There was then no question
of any exemption of inter-State sales from taxation.
S.
26 was
inserted in the main Act by Act 12 of 1951 and it ran as follows:
"(!) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act-
(a) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods sha II not
be imposed under this Act:
(i) where such sale or purchase takes place out·
side the State; or
(ii) where such sale or purchase takes place in
the course of import of the goods into or
export of the goods out of, the territory ot
India.
(b) a. tax on the sale or purchase ot any goods shall
not, aft~r the 31st day of March 1951, be imposed
where such sale or purchase takes place in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce except in
so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide.
(2) The explanatiqn to clause (!) of Art. 286 of the Cons·
titution of India shall apply for the interpretation of
sub-cl. (i) of cl. (a) of sub-section (J)".
This was to bring the Act. into line with Art. 286 of the Constitu·
tion of India. Then came .the judgment in the case of The Bengal
Immunity Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and others(') on
September 6, 1955. There it was decided that the sales or purchases
made by the appellant company in that case which were sought
to be taxed by the State of Bihar actually took p1ace in the course
of inter.State trade or, commerce and Parliament not having by
law otherwise provided, no Bihar law could tax these sales or
purchas~ although they fell within the Explanation to Art 2861 I>
and other States could not tax the same by reason of both cln use
l(a) read with the Explanation and cl. (2) of Art. 286. 'I. h.is l:_d_ '.!!
(1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 603.
B
c
.)
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
B
JtD&LA v. COCBDi CO.lL 00. LTD, (Mitltr, J.)
419
the passing of Central Act. 7 of .19S6. The obj~t of th~ Act.~
to validate laws of States unposmg, or authons10g the unpos1tion
ot' llWa on the sale or purchase of goods in the course ofinterState trade or commerce. S. 2 of the Act provided that:
"Notwimstanding any judgment, decree or order of any
court, no law of a State imposing, ·or authorising the impo$ition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods
where such sale or purchase took place in the course of
inter.State trade or commerce during the period between
the 1st day of April 1951 and the 6th day of September,
l9SS, shall be deemed to be invalid or ever to have
been invalid merely by reason of the fact that such sale
or purchase took place in the course of inter.State trade
or commerce; and all such taxes levied or collected or
purporting to have been validly levied or collected during
the aforesaid period shall be deemed always to have
been validly levied or collected in accordance with law .
..
I
I
•
•
•
..
A question here arises as to whether this statutory provision served
to lift the ban imposed by s. 26 of the General Sales Tax Act.
Then came the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 on
September 11, t956. It made substantial and important changes
in Art. 286 of the Constitution by deleting the Explanation to
Art. 286(1) and by substituting new Art. 286(2) and 286(3). It also
amended Art. 269. It inserted item 92A in the Union List of the
Seventh Schedule and substituted a new entry 54 in place of the
old one in the State List of the said Schedule. As a result of these
amendments, taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than
newspapers, where such sale or purchase took place in the course
of inter.State trade or commerce could be levied and collected by the
Government of India which was empowered to assign the same
to the States in terms of cl. (2) of Art. 269. Art. 269(3) empowered Parliament by law to formulate principles for determining
when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of
inter.State trade or commerce. The new item 92A added to the
Union List read:
"Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than news- .
papers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the
course of inter.State trade or commerce."
The .old entry 54 in the State List was substituted by a new entry
reading:
"Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newi.-
papers, subject to the provisions of entry 92A of List I."
It "70uld therefore appear that after the amendment of the Constitution in 1956 the State Legislatures were not competent to
legislate in respect of taxes on the sale or purchase Of goods other
than newspapers which took place in the course of inter.State
trade or commerce.
420
SUPREllE COURT REPORTS
[1968] 1 s.o.:a.
Next in order of da.te is the Travancore-Cochin General Sales
Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957 02 of 1957) which came into force
on August 7, 1957. S. 13 of this Act introduced several changes
in s. 26 of Act XI of 1125. In the first place, it substituted the
word 'State' for the words "State of Travancore-Cochin", in subcl. (i) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (I) of s. 26. It also deleted the words:
"except in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise
provide"
in cl. (b) of sub-s. (I) and omitted sub-s. (2) of the section. By .its
terms the amendment was only prospective. It did not seek to
disturb the position in law obtaining up to that date. It was argued
before us that the State Legislature was not competent to legislate
in this field after the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act.
On March
11,
1958 . Sundararamier & Co.'s
case(')
was decided by this Court. That ease dealt with the competence
of the States to levy tax on inter-State sales and to enact conditional
legislation on the subject. The statute which ·came lip for consideration was the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act
9 of 1939) as adapted to Andhra read with s. 2 of the Sales Tax
La.ws Validation Act (7 of 1956). S. 22 of the Madras General
Sales Tax Act was inserted in the statute by an Adllptation Order
of the President issued on July 2, 1952 and cl. (a) thereof was
substantially similar to s. 26(1)(a) of the Tra,vancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act XI of 1125. The effect of cl. (b) of s. 22 was that
nothing in the Act (Madras Act) was to be deemed to impose or
authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of any
goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce except in so far as Parli~nienfmay
by law otherwise provide after 31st March 1951 a~d thejirovfsi<>ns
of the Act were to be read and construed accordingly .. There was
an Explanation to this section which is a. verbatim· reproduction
of the Explanation to Art. 286(1)(a). It was held by this Court
(at page 1453) that:
"Taken along with the admitted power of the States to
impose tax on sales under Entry 54. the true scope of s. 22
is that it does impose a tax on the Explanation sales,
but the imposition is to take effect only when Pa.rliament
lifts the ban. In other words, it is a piece of legislation
imposing tax in praesenti but with a condition annexed
that it is to come into force in f11111ro as and when Parliament so provides ........................ It would clearly be
within the competence of the Madras Legislature to enact
a. law imposing a tax on sales conditional on the ban
enacted in Art. 286(2) being lifted by Parliamentary legislation. and that. in our opinion, is all that has been done
in s. 22. The Madras Act defines the event on which the
tax becomes payable and the person from whom and the
------ ----.. ----·----·------ -------
(1) [1958] S.C.R. 1422.
A
B
c
D
E
I'
G
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KERAU ii. ~ocilIN COAi. Co. i.TD. (Mitter, J.)
421
rate at which it has to be levied and forms a complete
code on the topic under consideration. It would have no
immediate operation by reason of the ban imposed by
Art. 286(2), but when once that is removed by a law of
Parliament, there is no impediment to its being enforced.
That satisfies all the requirements of a conditional legislation."
Discussing various authorities cited at the Bar this Court approved of the decision in Mettur Industries Ltd. v. State of Madras(')
and Dial Das v. P. S. Talwalkarn and held that s. 22 operated to
impose a tax on sales falling within the Explanation subject to
nuthorisation by Parliament as provided in Art. 286(2). At page
1463, the Court went on to observe :
"If it is competent to the legislatures of the States to enact
a law imposing a tax on inter-State sales to take effect
when Parliament so provides, there is nothing unconsitutional or illega I either in s. 22 of the Madras Act or in
the corresponding provisions in the Acts of other States.
If conditional legislation is valid, as we have held it is,
then s. 22 is clearly intra vire.~. and the foundation on
which this contention of the petitioners rests, disappears
and it must fall to the ground."
The case of the State of Kera/a & Others v. The Cochin Coal
Company Ltd(·') was decided on October 31,
1960. There, the
respondent who stocked bunker coal at Candia Island in the State
of .Madras sold the coal to steamers calling at the port of Cochin
in the State of Travancore-Cochin and delivered it
ther.e.
The
respondent was assessed to sales tax on such sales for the years
1951-52 and 1952-53. The respondent contended inter alia that the
sale being in the course of inter-State trade was covered by the
ban contained in Art. 286(2) of the Constitution and was not
taxable under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax 'Act, 1.125.
The State contended that this claim for exemption was not available in view of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, .1956. The
High Court held that the Validation Act could not avail the State
because on their construction of s. 26 of the Act, no tax had been
levied or was leviable on sales in the course of inter-State trade
or commerce and that the Validation Act having validated only
taxes already levied could not enable the State to levy tax which
had not been imposed by the State Sales Tax Act. This Court
rejected the view of the High Court (sec 7 S.T.C. 731 at p. 738)
and h~ld that "the vie"'. of the learned Judges of the High Court
regardtng the construction of s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin
General Sales Tax Act must now be held to be incorrect in view
of the decision of this Court in M. P. V. Suntlararamier & Co. v.
Tile Srare of Andhra Pratle.~/J(').
(1) A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 362.
(3) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 219.
(2) A.I.R. 1957 Born. 71.
< 4) [19581 s.c.R. 1422.
[far.an s.c.:a.
.
The position which emerges from the above may be summa·
nsed below:-
(!) The enactment of the Travancore-Cocbin General
Sales Tax Act as it stood prior to the coming into force
of the Constitution, imposed a leVY of sales tax on
transactions of the nature disclosed in this case.
(2) S. 26 of the General Sales Tax Act, as amended in
1951, imposed a ban on the levy of tax after March 3 J,
1951 subject to any exception which Parliament may by
law provide.
(3) Central Act 7 of 1956 was enacted for the purpose of
validating the leVY and collection of taxes between
1-4-1951 and 6-9-1955 which would otherwise be invalid
by reason of the decision in the Bengal Immunity Co.'s
case(').
(4) In Sundararamier's case(') it was held by this Court.
that s. 22 of the Madras General Sal~ Tax Act operated
to impose a tax subject to authorisation by ParliaJ)lent
as provided in Ari. 286 (2). Further, this Court did .not
agree with the view of the Kerala High Court in Cochin
Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Travancore-Coehin(').
(5) In the State of Kera/a & Oihers v. The Cochin Coal
Co. Ltd.(') this Court overruled the decision of the
Kerala High Court in the Cochin. Coal Co. Ltd. v. The
State of Travancore-Cochin(') regarding the construction
of s. 26 of the Travancore-Cocbin General Sales Tax
Act : further the assessee's claim to relief on the
strength of Art 286(2) of the Constitution was held .not
to be available to them after the coming into force of
the Sales Tax Validation Act, 1956 (See [19611 2 S.C.R.
pp. 219, 223).
The effect of this was that the leVY of sales tax up to 4th
September, 1955 being the last date with which we are concerned
in this case. was valid. The validity and the scope of the amend·
ment introduced in s. 26 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales
Tax Act by Act 12 of 1957 do not fall to be considered in this
case inasmuch as the Act was only prospective and did not operate
to invalidate any leVY of tax imposed before.
In this view of the matter, we are really not concerned to go
into the question as to whether the State of Kerala bad legislative
competence to enact Act 9 of 1962 seeking thereby to amend s. 26
of the Travancore-Cocbin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 by substi·
tuting the date 6th September, 1955 in place of 31st March 1951
and purporting to validate the leVY and collection of taxes on sales
and purchases falling within the purview of sub-s. (2A) of s. 26
of the principal Act as inserted by the Act of 1962. The ban
(1) [1955] 2 S.C.R 603.
(2) [1958] S.C.R. 1422.
(3) 7 S.T.C. 731.
(4) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 219.
A
B
J)
G
B
A
B
c
D
~F.RALA ti, COCntN COAL CO. LTD. (J/VU,., J,)
dS
imposeo by s. 26 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 having
been lifted by the Central Sales Tax Validating Act, 1956, the
State was competent to. collect all taxes in respect of sales in
the course of inter-State trade and commerce up to September 5,
1955.
In the result, we hold that sales tax was properly Jeviable by
the State of Kerala on the transactions which formed the subject
matter of this case up tq the 4th September 1955; but the question
raised in the application for revision was not correctly framed and
should read as folJows:
"Whether in the light of the Sales Tax Laws Validation
Act. 1956 (Central Act 7 of 1956) read with the Travan·
core-Cochin General Sales Tax Act as amended up to
1956, the finding of the Tribunal is correct?"
We amend the question accordingly. We allow the appeal and
answer the question in the negative. The matter must now go back
to the High Court and the High Court should remit the matter to
the Appellate Tribunal with our opinion on the question as reframed. In the circumstance. nf this case, we make no order as to
costs.
V.P.S
Appeal allowed.