|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 658 Records
-
2007 (9) TMI 565
Issues involved: Challenge to an order imposing interest u/s Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 due to lack of communication to the petitioner.
Issue 1: Communication of order
The writ petition challenged an order dated August 1, 2005, imposing interest under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the grounds of lack of communication to the petitioner. The counter filed stated that the order was dispatched to the petitioner by ordinary post on September 30, 2005. The controversy centered around whether service by ordinary post constituted valid service as per the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.
Issue 2: Relevant rule for service
Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was deemed relevant in determining the validity of service. The rule outlined various methods of service, including giving or tendering to the dealer or his representative, sending by registered post, or affixing at the last known place of business or residence if other modes were impractical. Notably, there was no provision for service by ordinary post under this rule.
Judgment
The court held that service by ordinary post did not meet the requirements of Rule 58, and thus, the order could not be presumed as validly served on the dealer. As the petitioner was not informed of the order and was not granted a hearing before its issuance, the court set aside the order dated August 1, 2005. The authority was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and issue fresh orders in compliance with the law, allowing the petitioner to raise their contentions before the authority. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2007 (9) TMI 564
Inter state purchases - Held that:- Though the petitioner in this case did not seek copies of the documents relied upon by the respondent, the petitioner has stated that he closed his business in the year 1990 and the certificate of registration was also cancelled on April 1, 1994. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the respondent that the petitioner did not deny the inter-State purchases, does not appear to be correct.
Under such circumstances, following the earlier order passed, which also arose as a result of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquiry against the very same Bombay party these two writ petitions are also disposed of setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to provide the copies of whatever documents he has in possession for passing the order impugned in the writ petition, to the petitioner within a period of two weeks
-
2007 (9) TMI 563
Auction purchase - petitioners are auction purchasers getting the auctioned property mutated in their name in the Revenue record - entry of demand of arrears of sales tax dues of erstwhile owners has been entered into the Revenue record - Held that:- The liability of the borrower and its directors cannot be fastened upon the petitioner, particularly, when the State had, after ascertaining the factual position from its various field agencies accorded permission to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner. If the Revenue record did not reflect the factum of the State's liability then it was not expected for the petitioner to make an inquiry from all the concerned departments of which the petitioner even may not knowing in relation to its debts.
The effect of accepting the State's submission to the contrary, would only promote and strengthen dishonest persons, who would be transferring their units from one hand to another from time to time without making the payment of dues. Further, there is nothing on record to show the tax liability pertaining to Regent Rubber. The petitioner had purchased the property to set up an industry which has been delayed for no fault on his part. W.P. allowed. Order rejecting petitioner's application for not mutating the entry in their name is quashed and set aside.
-
2007 (9) TMI 562
Issues:
1. Claim of exemption disallowed due to non-furnishing of requisite form.
2. Disallowance of exemption on purchases for not affixing required ticket.
3. Acceptance of forms as additional evidence by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal).
4. Tribunal's decision to allow exemption without giving opportunity of rebuttal.
5. Interpretation of Section 12B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
6. Legality of the Tribunal's interference with the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Analysis:
1. The dealer's claim of exemption was disallowed by the assessing authority for not furnishing the prescribed form under section 3D(7) read with rule 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. Additionally, for the assessment year 1992-93, exemption for a specific amount was disallowed due to the absence of a required ticket on form IIIC(2).
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) accepted the forms filed as additional evidence by the dealer and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for verification. The appellate authority also directed the dealer to submit a fresh form IIIC(2) for the assessment year 1992-93, leading to a further remand of the case.
3. The Tribunal, through its order, allowed the dealer's appeals and granted exemption against the forms submitted as additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). However, the Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of not providing the assessing officer with an opportunity of rebuttal as required under section 12B of the Act.
4. The court found merit in the argument that section 12B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act mandates providing the assessing authority with an opportunity for rebuttal after accepting additional evidence. Since this opportunity was not given, the Tribunal's decision to allow the claim of exemption directly was deemed illegal.
5. The interpretation of section 12B was crucial in determining the legality of accepting additional evidence without affording the assessing officer a chance for rebuttal. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to remand the matter for verification was in line with the statutory requirement.
6. Consequently, the court allowed both revisions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the decision of the first appellate authority. The assessing authority was directed to pass assessment orders for both the relevant years in compliance with the law.
-
2007 (9) TMI 561
Issues:
1. Exemption claim on the turnover of fish knitted fabrics for the assessment year 1994-95.
2. Rejection of exemption claim by the Commercial Tax Officer and subsequent legal proceedings.
3. Rejection of rectification petition by the second respondent due to the absence of an appeal.
4. Challenging the rejection through revisions to different authorities.
5. Seeking quashing of the order and consideration of exemption claim based on relevant legal precedents.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition and related orders.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed exemption on the turnover related to the sale of fish knitted fabrics for the assessment year 1994-95. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected this claim, leading to legal disputes.
2. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's plea, citing the availability of an appeal remedy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal did not extend the time for filing the statutory appeal, causing a delay in seeking redress.
3. The petitioner invoked Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for rectification of the assessment order. However, the second respondent rejected the rectification petition, stating that without filing an appeal, the assessment order could not be reviewed.
4. Despite subsequent revisions to higher authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, the rejection of the rectification petition was upheld, leading to recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner approached the court to quash the Tribunal's order and direct reconsideration of the exemption claim based on relevant legal decisions. The court, however, found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the pursuit of alternative remedies by the petitioner.
6. The court dismissed the writ petition and related orders, allowing the revision petition before the Joint Commissioner to proceed, with a stay on recovery proceedings until the revision is disposed of, granting the petitioner the opportunity to seek remedy through the ongoing revision process.
-
2007 (9) TMI 560
Concessional rate of tax at three per cent on the turnover covered by form XVII declarations - disallowance of labour charges collection - Held that:- The impugned revised order passed by the assessing authority is clearly against the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction. Therefore, on consideration of the pleadings of the materials on record, the matter has to be remitted to the assessing authority on the limited aspect, to determine the turnover covered by valid form XVII, for the reason that total sales have been shown as ₹ 19,57,784, in the impugned order, it is stated that form XVII has been filed only for the turnover of ₹ 18,56,488 and at the same time, it is mentioned as if that the dealer had submitted declaration forms for the entire sales turnover of ₹ 19,57,784. To make it clear, the turnover against form XVII produced for ₹ 18,56,488 is excluded.
On the second issue raised by the petitioner on the disallowance of labour charges collection, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner as per the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in acts cell-VI/13234/2001 dated April 20, 2001, without going into the merits of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the appeal, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without insisting upon the period of limitation.
-
2007 (9) TMI 559
Issues: Classification of nylon fishing nets for sales tax purposes under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Issue 1: Classification under Entry 100 of Schedule I
The High Court considered whether nylon fishing nets should be classified under entry 100 of Schedule I, which pertains to "Bonded fibre fabrics other than those made of coir." The court noted that nylon fishing nets were manufactured from nylon twines by weaving, and that the term "bonding" typically involves lamination by an adhesive. The court rejected the contention that nylon fishing nets did not contain bonded fibers, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind entry 100 was to encompass fabrics bound together. The court held that nylon fishing nets did not qualify as bonded fiber fabrics under entry 100 due to the absence of a bonding process involving adhesion or fusion of substances, overturning the lower court's decision.
Issue 2: Classification under Entry 7 of Schedule III
The High Court also examined whether nylon fishing nets could be classified under entry 7 of Schedule III, which includes "rayon or artificial silk fabrics." Relying on a previous Madras High Court judgment, the court determined that nylon fishing nets could be considered as falling under the category of rayon or artificial silk fabrics. The court found that nylon fabrics fit the description of rayon or artificial silk fabrics based on the available literature. Since the sales tax authorities did not present any alternative classification, the High Court upheld the classification of nylon fishing nets under entry 7 of Schedule III, thereby overturning the lower court's decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the lower court's decision to classify nylon fishing nets under entry 100 of Schedule I. The court upheld the classification of nylon fishing nets under entry 7 of Schedule III for sales tax purposes under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
2007 (9) TMI 558
Intra-State sales v/s Inter state sale - Held that:- In case if the Revenue wants to rely upon the inquiries or any statement taken on the back of the dealer from the transport companies and Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta, the burden lies upon the assessing authority to prove its correctness and for that the opportunity of the cross-examination to the applicant must be afforded. Since in the present case, the opportunity of cross-examination has not been given, the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below are liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to pass the assessment orders afresh. In case, the assessing authority wants to rely upon the inquires or any statement held on the back of the dealer, the opportunity of crossexamination should be given. However, it is open to the revenue authority to ask the dealer to adduce the evidence in support of its claim that the goods had been transported to Ganga Enterprises, Calcutta and the sales were made through the commission agent, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the assessment orders may be passed in accordance with the law after hearing the dealer.
In the result, all the three revisions are allowed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 557
Estimation of Turnover - Held that:- Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that no basis has been given for the estimate of the turnover. Moreover, when the first appellate authority had not adjudicated the issue relating to the taxability of the purchases of mustard khali sold against form IIIB, Tribunal still proceeded to decide the issue and has allowed the exemption. On the aforesaid facts, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merit adjudicating all the issues involved in the appeal. Revision is allowed in part
-
2007 (9) TMI 556
Issues:
Assessment based on hire charges under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the year 1990-91 without proper opportunity of hearing.
Analysis:
The revision was filed against the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1990-91. The assessing authority initiated proceedings based on information that the applicant provided a bus on hire to IFFCO Phulpur and received hire charges. An ex parte order was passed, levying tax on the hire charges under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The first and second appeals were rejected by the Tribunal.
Arguments and Decision:
The applicant's counsel argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper hearing and that the agreement showed the vehicle was provided for employee transportation with control remaining with the applicant, indicating no transfer of right to use the vehicle to IFFCO. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was emphasized that for a transfer of right to use goods, the goods must be deliverable and delivered. The High Court found merit in the arguments, noting that the agreement was not considered by any authority. It directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter based on the agreement to determine if tax under section 3F was applicable.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment considering the terms of the agreement. The applicant was instructed to provide a copy of the order to the assessing authority within fifteen days for further proceedings without the need for a fresh notice. This decision highlighted the importance of proper consideration of agreements in tax assessments involving the transfer of right to use goods.
-
2007 (9) TMI 555
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax liability u/s 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for transportation services provided by UPSRTC.
Summary:
The case involved three revisions arising from the Tribunal's order for assessment years 1996-97, 1992-93, and 1989-90 concerning tax levied on transportation charges by UPSRTC under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessing authority claimed tax on the basis of a perceived transfer of right to use buses by UPSRTC to contracted parties for passenger transportation. However, UPSRTC argued that it only provided buses for transportation services, retaining control and possession of the buses at all times.
The first appellate authority sided with UPSRTC, leading to appeals by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the buses were always under UPSRTC's control and possession, with drivers and conductors employed by the corporation. The Tribunal's finding was considered a factual determination.
In the absence of evidence showing transfer of possession or control to contracted parties, the Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedent requiring goods to be deliverable and actually delivered for a transaction to constitute a transfer of right to use. Consequently, the revisions were deemed meritless and dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 554
Eligibility for settlement - Held that:- The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 came to be enacted for the purpose of expeditious settlement of disputes relating to arrears of tax, penalty or interest pertaining to sales tax by giving substantial relief for the assessee to settle the matter out of court. As stated already, even though the first respondent-assessee has succeeded before the first appellate authority because of the fact that appeal is pending at the instance of the State before the second appellate authority, the assessee, in order to avoid further conflict or further dispute, is entitled to file an application under section 5 of the 2002 Act as the first respondent-assessee is fulfilling the requirement under section 4 of the 2002 Act. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the order of the Special Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 553
Transfer of right to use the goods and to invoke the provisions of section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Held that:- In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006 (3) TMI 1 - Supreme court] the apex court held that for the transfer of right to use the goods, goods must be at a deliverable stage and at some stage it should be delivered.
This court, in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Jamuna Prosad Jaiswal, Allahabad, reported in [2005 (8) TMI 649 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held that unless possession and control of the goods is transferred there cannot be transfer of right to use the goods under section 3F of the Act.
In view of the above law laid down in the aforesaid decision by the apex court and the High Courts, it is clear that for the transfer of right to use the goods and to invoke the provision of section 3F of the Act, the delivery of the possession is sine qua non.
-
2007 (9) TMI 552
Issues: Levy of tax on consideration received on the sale of import licence, determination of whether the dealer should be treated as a manufacturer or importer, interpretation of the term "manufacture" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of tax liability on the consideration received from the sale of an import license. The dealer contended that they were neither a manufacturer nor an importer in the said transaction, hence the sale consideration should not be taxed. The assessing authority, however, treated the dealer as a manufacturer and imposed tax. The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the dealer, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. Both authorities concluded that the dealer was neither an importer nor a manufacturer in the sale of the import license.
The High Court referred to a previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ovject De Art India, Moradabad, where it was established that the definition of "manufacture" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only to tangible goods and not to intangible goods like REP licenses or exim scrips. These intangible goods cannot be manufactured in the traditional sense, and thus, the authority granting the license cannot be considered a manufacturer. Additionally, a notification issued by the State Government specified the liability of tax on sales of goods like import licenses, but notably did not impose this liability on the manufacturer, as these permits and licenses are not manufactured goods.
Based on the interpretation of the term "manufacture" and the precedents cited, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the dealer. Consequently, the revision against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed, affirming that the dealer should not be treated as a manufacturer for tax purposes in the sale of import licenses.
-
2007 (9) TMI 551
Issues Involved: Assessment order validity under section 12C of the Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of hosiery garments, challenged the assessment order made by the respondent for the assessment year 2002-03. The petitioner had initially faced proposed disallowances by the respondent but later submitted necessary documents for verification. However, the respondent still proposed tax on certain items due to lack of specific details. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was invalid as it was passed on January 12, 2007, contrary to section 12C of the Act, which extended the time for producing required documents until March 31, 2007. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and invalid in the eyes of the law.
The court considered the submissions made by both parties and found merit in the petitioner's argument. The court noted that the respondent did not refute the petitioner's contentions regarding the validity of the assessment order under section 12C of the Act. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order dated January 12, 2007, and directed the petitioner to file all necessary documents within 15 days for a fresh assessment order to be passed by the respondent within two weeks thereafter. The court allowed the writ petition with the specified directions and did not impose any costs on either party.
-
2007 (9) TMI 550
Whether the supply of material to the contractor amounts to sale? - Held that:- Supply of the material to the contractor is a sale in a case where while making the payment to the contractor the value of the goods are deducted. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal treating the supply of the materials to the contractors as a sale is upheld. See N.M. Goel & Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon [1988 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]
Now coming to the question of the estimate of the turnover, perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has simply confirmed the estimate of the turnover without considering the necessary details, namely, opening stock, purchases made from outside the State of U.P. and the closing stock. Even though, the supply of the materials to the contractors could not be furnished, but in the absence of such details, for the purposes of estimate, the opening stock, purchases made outside the State of U.P. and the closing stock are the relevant materials to be considered for each year.In view of the above, the Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the issue of determination of the turnover after taking into account the opening stock, purchases made outside the State of U.P. and the closing stock for each year. Revisions allowed in part
-
2007 (9) TMI 549
Sales tax levied on sale of cement and iron - Held that:- The very opening of Schedule C which contains conditions provides that following materials (cement, mild steel, G.I. pipes) shall be supplied to the contractor at the specified rate and the cost of these materials shall be recovered from the contractor's bills. In view of clear stipulation in-between the dealer and its contractor with regard to the supply of materials and recovery of cost of the materials from the contractor's bill there is a sale in the hands of the dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that under condition No. 3 the contractor is obliged to return unused materials in good condition and is not entitled to take away unused materials and will distinguish the ratio of the case of N.M. Goel & Co. [1988 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]is misconceived.
The condition No. 3 further stipulates that on failure of return of unused goods the cost of sale shall be deducted from the contractor's bill at double the rate for cement and one-and-half times that for steel and allied goods, runs counter to the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Thus such contract amounts to sale of materials supplied by the contractee to the contractor. Revision dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 548
Issues involved: Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1998-99.
Details of the judgment:
The applicant, running a restaurant, claimed to have maintained books of account showing a taxable turnover of Rs. 23,55,309.44. However, the assessing authority estimated the turnover at Rs. 28,40,000 through best judgment assessment, which was upheld by the first appeal and the Tribunal.
The applicant argued that in their business, maintaining a manufacturing account was not feasible, but they had provided necessary details of purchases and sales to the assessing authority. The rejection of the books of account was deemed unjustified as no reasons were given for estimating the turnover, and the turnover from previous and subsequent years had been accepted.
The Tribunal noted the applicant's failure to maintain the mandatory manufacturing account under section 12(2) of the Act and the absence of necessary purchase details. Citing precedent, the Tribunal justified the rejection of books of account and the estimation of turnover through best judgment assessment.
The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision to reject the books of account due to the non-maintenance of the manufacturing account. However, it criticized the lack of reasons provided for estimating the turnover at Rs. 28,40,000, especially considering the turnover from previous years. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision in part, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh assessment of turnover with proper consideration of the material on record and previous assessments.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the rejection of books of account due to non-maintenance of the manufacturing account but directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the turnover with proper reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.
-
2007 (9) TMI 547
Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that filtered coconut oil is taxable under the category of "oil of all kinds" at the rate of four per cent despite the fact that the aforesaid commodity falls under the category "hair oil" and is consequently taxable under the entry (all kinds of cosmetics) at the rate of 12 per cent with effect from September 7, 1981 vide Notification No. ST-II-5784/x-(1)/80 U.P. Act 15/ 48-Order-81 dated September 7, 1981?
Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the product in question manufactured and sold by the assessee is cattle feed and balance poultry feed which is exempt from payment of sales tax despite the fact that cattle feed is taxable as an unclassified commodity?
Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the assessee was not liable for tax on sale of blue detergent cakes as it was sold after purchasing from Carona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur a unit holding eligibility certificate granted under section 4A of the Act despite the fact that this dealer himself is a manufacturer in the real sense of the aforesaid commodity?
Held that:- So far as question No. (i) is concerned,A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of dealer itself for the assessment year 1983-84 in revision No. 49 of 1990 and for other assessment years in revisions Nos. 60, 61, 62 and 63 of 1990. This court vide order dated September 5, 1997 upheld the order of the Tribunal and held that "filtered coconut oil" is liable to tax under the entry of "oil of all kinds.", thus the order of the Tribunal is upheld and the question is answered in favour of the assessee.
So far as question No. (ii) is concerned, both the parties are agreed that so far as taxability of cattle feed is concerned, issue is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Cattle Feed Plant, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Meerut v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2007 (9) TMI 546 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] in which the cattle feed sold in the name of Parag Pashu Aahar has been held covered under the entry of cattle fodder. Thus the order of the Tribunal is upheld and the question is answered in favour of the dealer.
Coming to the question No. (iii) no error in the order of the Tribunal. Merely because under the terms of the agreement, Karona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur had purchased the raw materials, chemicals, etc., as per specification and the quality prescribed by the dealer it cannot be said that the manufacturing was carried on on behalf of the dealer. The terms of the agreement reveals that agreement was for the sales on principal-to-principal basis. Therefore the sales of blue detergent bars and cakes purchased from Karona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur by the dealer to different parties were the second sales and thus, not liable to tax. The order of the Tribunal is upheld and the question is decided in favour of the dealer. Revision dismissed.
-
2007 (9) TMI 546
Issues Involved: Taxability of cattle feed, interpretation of "cattle fodder" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, applicability of specific notifications and judicial precedents.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Cattle Feed:
The primary issue in the revisions was the taxability of cattle feed sold under the name "Parag Pashu Aahar." The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's view that this product should be taxed as an unclassified item. The applicant contested this, arguing that "Parag Pashu Aahar" should be considered cattle fodder and thus be exempt from tax under the relevant notification.
2. Interpretation of "Cattle Fodder":
The applicant argued that "Parag Pashu Aahar" falls within the definition of cattle fodder and should be exempt from tax. The relevant notification No. ST-II-3714/x-6(1)/85-U.P. Act 15/48, dated June 5, 1985, was cited, which includes various items under cattle fodder but excludes oil-cake, rice polish, rice bran, or rice husk. The applicant relied on judicial precedents, including Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer and Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which supported the broader interpretation of cattle fodder to include cattle feed.
3. Applicability of Specific Notifications:
The applicant highlighted that cattle feed was specifically excluded from cattle fodder only with effect from October 10, 1994, by Notification No. TT-II-3401. Therefore, for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1993-94, cattle feed should be considered part of cattle fodder and exempt from tax. The applicant also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ram Chandra Asha Ram, which supported the view that cattle fodder includes everything fed to cattle, including items like damaged wheat.
4. Judicial Precedents:
Several judicial precedents were cited to support the applicant's contention:
- Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer: Defined cattle fodder broadly to include cattle feed.
- Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat: Detailed the meaning of cattle feed and its importance in livestock nutrition.
- Sree Ramakrishna Cattle-feed Manufacturers v. Commercial Tax Officer: Held that mixtures used as cattle feed fall within the ambit of cattle fodder.
- C. Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu: Similar to the above, supported the inclusion of mixed feed under cattle fodder.
- Ram Chandra Asha Ram v. Commissioner of Sales Tax: Affirmed by the Supreme Court, held that cattle fodder includes all items fed to cattle unless specifically excluded.
5. Tribunal's Order and Its Set Aside:
The Tribunal's order was set aside because it did not consider the broader interpretation of cattle fodder supported by judicial precedents and the specific exclusions made only after October 10, 1994. The decisions of the learned single judge in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Cattle Feed Plant, Meerut, were deemed inapplicable as they did not consider the relevant notification and the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Chandra Asha Ram.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the turnover of cattle feed was exempt from tax during the years under consideration. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and all revisions were allowed in favor of the applicant.
............
|
9911796707
