1. In this Tax Case, the question argued before us is that the goods described by the assessee as cotton seeds are not ‘declared goods’ within the meaning of Section 8(3)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as originally enacted. The case of assessee was that a turnover of Rs. 1,85,848-44 related to sale of cotton seeds, which, according to him, was a declared commodity. This stand was taken by the assessee, at any rate, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and reiterated in second appeal before the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, accepting the said contention, did not adopt the lower rate of tax, because in the C declaration forms filed by the assessee mention was made that the goods were being purchased for use by him in the manufacture of goods for sale. According to Section 8(3)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it stood, it is only in cases where declared goods are purchased in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and where such goods were intended for resale by the purchaser that the concessional rate of one per cent could be availed of. But here, in this case, the assessee’s case, as already stated, was that the goods in question were ‘declared goods.’ But in his C forms, he never mentioned that such goods were intended for resale by him: but on the other hand, the purpose disclosed therein was to the effect that the goods were intended for use in the manufacture of goods for sale. The Tribunal noticed the categorical purpose as disclosed in the C forms declarations and came, in our opinion, to the correct conclusion and held that the concessional rate was not applicable and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in having invoked such a concessional rate in the instant case.
2. Before us, Mr. Rajappa, learned Counsel for the assessee, says that the assessee has wrongly described the goods as ‘declared goods.’ His contention is that the goods in question are cotton seeds and by pronouncements of Courts such cotton seeds cannot be deemed to or considered as ‘declared goods.’ In this view of the matter, he would say that a question of law has arisen in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and that consequently the levy of a higher rate of tax is illegal.
3. This argument overlooks the consistent stand of the assessee before the Revenue as well as before the Tribunal, wherein his case was that the goods in question were ‘declared goods.’ On a question of fact, one cannot approbate and reprobate. The Counsel’s case is that for the purpose of escaping the levy, the goods were characterised as ‘declared goods’ and as the sale in question was a second sale, a point was raised that no tax was leviable at all. In other words, the argument is that for the limited purpose of escaping the levy the goods were characterised as ‘ declared goods’ but for the purpose of Section 8(3)(a) the goods are not ‘declared goods’ and therefore Section 8(3)(b) is the provision to be made applicable and the concession accordingly granted as envisaged therein. To allow such an argument would be to accept inconsistent stands and to allow a party to blow hot and cold according to exigencies and convenience. Whether particular goods are ‘declared goods’ or not is essentially within the knowledge of the assessee and sometimes it would even evade analysis on the part of the Revenue and the Courts as well. No such difficulty, however, arises in the instant case, because the stand and the conduct of the assessee consistently reflects upon the fact that the goods in question were treated and considered as ‘declared goods’. In such a view of the things, it is not open to the assessee, just for the purpose of gaining a concessional rate, to metamorphose the goods into goods other than ‘declared goods’ and claim entitlement as to concession Under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act. Once it is irrefutable that the goods are ‘declared goods’ as it is the case of the assessee himself, then Section 8(3)(a) of the original enactment will operate and in the instant case the assessee would not be entitled to the concessional rate. This is a case where the goods were purchased not for purposes of resale but for purposes of being used by the assessee in the manufacture of goods for sale. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the correct conclusion. The tax case is dismissed.