1963 (2) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontended, in the first place, that the petitioner purchased standing timber and the Authorities should not have taxed standing timber under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, because standing timber is not goods but immovable property. It must be stated in fairness to Mr. Panda that he did not ultimately press this point. Mr. Panda contended, in the next place, that the petitioner merely chopped .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that the petitioner was at first taxed on timber and again taxed on firewood. This, he concluded, amounted to a double taxation which must not be allowed to remain. This argument is not very well conceived. The petitioner was no doubt taxed on timber. After he manufactured firewood from timber, there was no reason to escape assessment on the manufactured commodity. All the three arguments made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X