9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectricity was free from sales tax. Shri Bhagwan Dass owned another concern called M/s. B.D. Brothers, Malerkotla, which dealt with electrical goods and appliances. Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, both these concerns had two separte certificates of registration in Form S.T. III. The sales tax numbers of these concerns were BAR III 2550 and BAR III 1924 respectively. Later on, the authorities decided that there should be one certificate of registration as Shri Bhagwan Dass was the proprietor of both the concerns and that it should be in Form S.T. IV as prescribed by rule 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules. On 1st of April, 1962, Shri Bhagwan Dass gifted his entire business which he was running under the name and style of M/s. B.D. Brothers, Malerkotla, to his son Shri Chaman Lal and his grandson Shri Prem Kumar in equal shares. Consequently, he had to surrender the registration certificase No. BAR IV 1929 for having it amended in Form S.T. III. On 10th of April, 1962, he made an application submitting that since he had gifted M/s. B.D. Brothers, Malerkotla, to his son and grandson, his registration certificate No. RC BAR IV 1929 be converted into S.T. 111 in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, on 17th of June, alleging that he made inter-State purchases from Delhi in connection with the power-house and that he was, therefore, liable to pay tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as he had imported them into Punjab from Delhi, and on that account, he was entitled to be registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. If a person is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, he could purchase goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce by furnishing a declaration in Form 'C' as is prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Rules and on the basis of that he is liable to pay only 2 per cent sales tax. But if he is not registered under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the sales tax chargeable is 10 per cent. The dealer who sells to the petitioner would then charge 10 per cent from the petitioner if he is not a registered dealer and thus, the petitioner stood to lose 8 per cent on account of his not being a registered dealer. The action of the authorities in not granting to the petitioner the registration certificate would result in a considerable loss in enhanced tax which he would be required to pay. On the above all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us or otherwise. The main question in this case is whether electric energy should be deemed "goods " within the Punjab General Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. The definition under both the Acts is in identical language namely "goods" means all kinds of movable property other than newspapers, actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities, vide section 2(e) of the Punjab Act and section 2(d) of the Central Act. The terms-movable property" and "immovable property" are defined in identical languages in the Central General Clauses Act, vide sub-sections (26) and (36) of section 3 and in the Punjab General Clauses Act, vide sub-sections (26) and (35) of section 2 and the definitions are reproduced below: "'Immovable property' shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." * * "'Movable property' shall mean property of every description, except immovable property." It will thus be noticed that the scope of the definition of movable property is very wide. Electric energy, not being immovable, has to be deemed as movable property. Apart from the technical definition contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at before the advent of electric energy, it could not be conceived that such a power could be the subject of larceny but like water, gas and oil, it partakes of an attribute of movement or flux. In Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Company Limited and Others v. Samuel S. Carroll and Another[1911] A.C. 105., which was a case for damages against the defendants for breach of contract resultant from non-supply of gas, it was held that the defendants had broken their contract and were liable for damages and gas was treated like any other property. In Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1963] 14 S.T.C. 600. , it was held that electricity is "goods" for the purposes of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was observed that both from the scientific as well as the economic point of view, electricity was as much property as gas or water, which was subjected to a particular process. In Nainital Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, NainitalA.I.R. 1946 All. 502., the question before the Bench was whether in a suit to recover the price of electric energy supplied to the defendant, the article of the Limitation Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
