1993 (6) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the "bone" purchased by the petitioner. The question pertains to the 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 s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t tax is leviable on the first or earliest of the successive dealers 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 ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d Schedule because the petitioner will be the first seller of "bone 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 c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X