9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee that he was not a manufacturer. On appeal the findings as well as the quantum were affirmed. The assessee took the matter in revision. The Additional Judge (Revisions) held that in view of the decision of this court in Dr. Sukh Deo v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.[1963] 14 S.T.C. 581., to the effect that there cannot be a manufacture unless the resulting produce is a commercially different article, the assessee cannot be said to have manufactured a commercially different article. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dr. Sukh Deo[1969] 23 S.T.C. 385 (S.C.). In view of these decisions it was held that the assessee was not liable to tax under section 3-A as a manufacturer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions) has not discussed this finding and that he has completely overlooked it. The result is that it cannot be said that the question whether the assessee was assessable to tax under section 3 of the Act as a dealer does arise out of the revisional order; because there is no allegation that this point was even argued before the Additional judge (Revisions). Since the department has not got any question referred to us in regard to the omission by the Additional judge (Revisions) in dealing with the applicability of section 3 of the Act, we cannot, while answering the question referred to us, deal with that aspect. The question though widely worded cannot, in our opinion, include the applicability of section 3 in regard to the assessment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 3-A that will be the prevailing construction of that word in the statute and the notification. If a term used by the legislature in a particular statute has been judicially declared to have a particular meaning, the subordinate rulemaking authority cannot by its notification or rule change that construction. It was hence not open to the State Government to have made a notification which would have the effect of making those preparing mixtures of medicines liable to tax as manufacturer. In this view of the law the submission that the amending notification of 11th October, 1962, by implication made all those chemists other than medical practitioners liable to tax as a manufacturer cannot be accepted. In the result the question referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
