AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 61

Parliament's Intent

3.65. Sale after import intended to be excluded by Parliament.-

No doubt, even under Khosla's case every sale after import is not exempt. But even the situation where the import is an integral part of the sale (as in Khosla's case) was, in our view, intended to be excluded from the scope of section 5 according to what we presume to be the intention of Parliament.

Conclusion

3.66. Modification whether needed-discussion confined to legal aspects.-It is in the light of this background that we have to examine whether the position resulting from Khosla's case should be modified. We shall confine ourselves to the legal aspects of the matter.

3.67. In our opinion, When Parliament, in enacting section 5, used the word 'occasion', it presumably intended to adopt the narrow interpretation placed upon the word by Patanjali Sastri, C.J., who spoke for the majority of the Court in the second Travancore case. We are, therefore, inclined to recommend that the broad interpretation placed on that word in Khosla's case needs to be legislatively restricted.



Certain Problems connected with Powers of the States to Levy a Tax on the Sale of Goods and with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys