TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) building or plumbing finished patent and proprietary materials or fixtures medicines, toilet, ayurvedic and required for construction, pharmaceutical preparations fitting out or repair of any for sale." building. The petitioner's case is that on the strength of the above exemption clause in the certificate, the petitioner used to purchase, free of tax, "paper and ink" necessary for the printing of its cartons, labels and directions etc. which are necessary for the marketing and sale of the finished products manufactured by it and that the price upon which sales tax is realised from it is inclusive of the cost of making the cartons, labels etc. It is added that the petitioner has its own printing press for the printing of the said materials. The petitioner's trouble started from a letter addressed by it on 18th November, 1960 (annexure 'B') to the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanipore Charge, seeking a clarification as to whether, on the strength of the exemption clause in the registration certificate, the petitioner was entitled to purchase, tax-free, the types required in its printing press for printing the cartons, labels etc. for offering its finished products for sale. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 'H' on various grounds. It appears that before the revisional authority as well as this Court, the deletion of one item only has been challenged, namely, paper and ink. Respondent No. 1 has filed a counteraffidavit on behalf of himself as well as respondent No. 2-the revisional authority. Two points have been urged before me by Mr. Chakravarty on behalf of the petitioner: I. That (i) under section 7(4), the Commissioner may amend a registration certificate only on the grounds specified in section 16, whether he acts upon information furnished by the dealer under that section or on information received from any other source, and that (ii) if he wants to act on any other ground, he can do it only by way of review, on compliance with the requirements of section 20(4),(5). II. That even if the Commissioner has the jurisdiction to amend a certificate on grounds other than those specified in section 16, in the instant case, the deletion of "paper and ink" is without jurisdiction or vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as "paper and ink" comes under the deduction clause in section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act as goods purchased by the petitioner "for use by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roversy, by the Supreme Court (Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1959] 35 I.T.R. 1; A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 257. and Wealth-tax Commissioner v. Imperial Tobacco Co.[1966] 61 I.T.R. 461; A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 230, 233-4.) holding that the word "information" is wide enough to include the officer's own knowledge. There is nothing in the Act before us to attribute a different meaning to the word "information". But the question remains, can the words "otherwise received" refer to information relating to any matter other than the three contingencies specified by section 16? Unfortunately for the petitioner, this question has been answered against it by two Single Bench decisions of this Court (Bhartia Electric Steel Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1956] 7 S.T.C. 527. and Merchant Traders v. State of West Bengal[1963] 14 S.T.C. 798.), and, though the question was left by the Division Bench in Indian Iron Steel Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1957] 8 S.T.C. 517, 532. , the concluding words relied upon by Mr. Chakravarty do not, indeed, support him but show an inclination of the Court to the contrary. These words are: "I might only add that it is by no means clear to me that the information, ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights of the dealer. It may be mentioned that in the instant case, the petitioner has, in fact, availed of the remedy by way of revision, though without success. The present contention is, therefore, rejected. II. The second point relates to an interpretation of section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the relevant portion of which says: "In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means.........that part of his gross turnover......which remains after deducting therefrom- (a) his turnover during that period on (ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of such dealer, as being intended for resale in West Bengal or for use by him in the manufacture in West Bengal of goods for sale, and of containers and other materials for the packing of goods of the class or classes so specified." For deduction on account of purchases of paper and ink, the petitioner relies upon two of the clauses set out above: (a) that they are used by the petitioner in the manufacture of his finished products which are offered for sale; and (b) that they are materials for the packing of such products. The petitioner is entitled to suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " for which his order at annexure 'H' is liable to be set aside. But in view of the fact that he has not made any definite finding whether either or both of them constitute "packing materials", I should direct to make a fresh finding on this point, instead of making a finding myself (vide Prem Sagar v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co.[1964] 5 S.C.R. 1030. ). As to the other ground that paper and ink are "intended for use by the petitioner in the manufacture......of goods for sale", while Mr. Chakravarty lays stress on the words "for sale" and argues that the labels, cartons etc. are necessary for the sale of the finished products, Mr. Dutt on behalf of the respondents relies on the word "in" and contends. that it is only goods which are directly necessary for the manufacture of the finished products, namely, the medicines etc. which would come within the purview of the clause and not those which may be indirectly necessary. Three Supreme Court decisions have been presented before me. Of those, the latest is Indra Singh v. Sales Tax Officer[1966] 17 S.T.C. 510. Though this case relates to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the relevant provision in section 8(3)(b) of that Act is similar to tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
