TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Though the revision petition is numbered as S.T.R.P. No. 22 of 1991, we are told that the petitioner has paid court-fee governing three revision petitions. There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased the bone and thereafter bone meal was prepared out of the bone purchased and it was sold. There is also no dispute that the petitioner paid tax in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the State under section 5(3)(a). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner bone and bone meal are the same commodity and if tax is levied on the "bone meal", then purchase tax cannot be levied on the turnover of the "bone". We are not concerned here with the chemical qualities of these two items. The Legislature has specifically treated the commodity called "bone", under the Third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meal". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a distinction should not be made and that when tax is levied in respect of turnover of one of the commodities, the other commodities should not be burdened with the tax. We are not aware of any principle which would support the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the Legislature has thought it fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
