TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire turnover, under a notification issued by the Government of Pondicherry in G.O. Ms. No. 37/70/Fin. (ST), dated August 21, 1970. So also, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 41,75,997.75 and claimed exemption on the same footing. The assessing authority found that the respondents were not entitled to exemption and brought the disputed turnover into taxation by levying tax at the rate of 3 per cent, apart from levying a penalty at Rs. 1,000. On appeal, the first appellate authority deleted the penalty with regard to the local Act and affirmed the penalty with regard to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. Against these orders, the respondent-assessee filed second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under section 19 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. Learned counsel for the Revenue also contends that the purchasers from the petitioners are industrialists and the pesticides are sold inter-State also and as such there cannot be any ground for granting exemption on the sales of pesticides made by the respondent-assessee. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee Mr. C. Venkataraman, draws our attention to the notification issued under section 19(1) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, and contends that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption, both under the local Act and on the Central Act. Learned counsel points out that the notification cannot be said to be with any condition and as such it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notification in question of any such limitation, as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Tribunal has chosen to place reliance on the certificates of the competent authorities concerned and other materials and has come to the conclusion that the product sold by the petitioner satisfied the requirements of the term "pesticide" and comes under the notification issued under section 19 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard and we do not see any reason to differ from the finding of the Tribunal, which the Tribunal has arrived at, after considering various and other materials and has given a finding on fact. So, the question is whether the respondent- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land has been reiterated in another case reported in Industrial Cables (I.) Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1987] 64 STC 349 by the apex Court itself. In view of the well-settled principle whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to exemption or not, in such circumstances, we have to set aside the order of the Tribunal on this aspect. We are not able to understand when the Tribunal says that if the wording is different, the intention of the Government can be read in the other way, especially the following finding of the Tribunal, namely: "If the intention of the Government was that it should qualify the word 'use' the phrase should have been 'in the Union Territory of Pondicherry' instead of 'in the whole Union Territory of Pondicherry'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
