TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under section 22 of the Act on the ground that the pipes in question were "sanitary fittings" and were liable to tax under section 3-A at the rate of 8 per cent. The petitioner filed a written objection dated 13th September, 1971, contending that neither the pipes in question were "sanitary fittings" nor was section 22 applicable. The Sales Tax Officer has overruled this objection and has passed the impugned order levying tax at the rate of 8 per cent. Now, section 22 has a limited scope. It cannot be used to rectify every type of mistake. In Concrete Spun Pipe Works v. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, Kanpur(1), this court has clearly laid down that the jurisdiction of the assessing authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the matter is again completely covered by two decisions of this court. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. jagan Co.Sales Tax Reference No. 469 of 1970 decided on 6th July, 1971., this court held that A. C. pipes were not ',sanitary fittings". It followed an earlier decision of this court in M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. v. Commissioner of Sales TaxCivil Misc. Writ No. 1111 of 1970; since reported in [1972] 29 S.T.C. 487,, where it was held that "hume pipes" were not "sanitary fittings". It was observed in that case that every article connected with sanitation does not come within the expression "sanitary fittings", which is restricted to such articles as are used in bath-rooms and lavatories like commodes, cistern tank, urinals, etc. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the judge (Revisions), in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Pyarelal Om Prakash (Revision Application No. 1149 of 1965 decided on 13th April, 1967), where it has been held that G. I. pipes are "sanitary fittings". The standing counsel has shown us a copy of that decision. It does not contain any reason, but is based upon a decision in another case. It is obvious that the Sales Tax Officer has chosen to follow the decision of the judge (Revisions) in preference to the decision of this court. This was highly improper. The decision of a judge (Revisions) may be carried out by a Sales Tax Officer in a particular case, but he cannot treat such a decision as a precedent to be followed in other cases in preference to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
