TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the above notification. Though the user theory adopted by the Special Tribunal and the authorities below to non-suit the benefit of the notification dated March 4, 1974 to the petitioner is logical, but inconclusive, as held by the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [1988] 68 STC 324. The petitioner's sale of "Karuvelan wood" to the Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers Limited, a paper manufacturing industry for making pulp wood, would not alter the character of the wood sold by the petitioner from "firewood". Hence, the order of the Tribunal has to be quashed by this Court. He further contended that the decision on which reliance has been placed by the Special Tribunal dated February 16, 2000 made in T.C.R. Nos. 1467 and 1468 of 1997 to negative the claim of exemption to the petitioner, has been held to be not correct by the division Bench of this Court in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [2002] 127 STC 53. Following the said judgment, the order of the Special Tribunal, which is questioned in this writ petition, has also be set aside and the exemption should be granted to the petitioner. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an agreement in agreement No. 6148 dated March 31, 1988. As per the agreement, the price of the wood per metric tonne was fixed at Rs. 250 and quantity of 2,257.79 metric tonnes were supplied during the assessment year 1988-89. The agreement further implied that the material should be supplied at buyer's factory site at Kakithapuram. On such supply, a sum of Rs. 550 per metric tonne would be reimbursed to the petitioner towards cost of transportation. 6.. A revised assessment order was passed on the basis of check of account on December 15, 1989 treating the sale of "Karuvelan wood" supplied to Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers Limited as timber and assessed to tax at 8 per cent on the sales turnover of Rs. 6,02,140. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [1988] 68 STC 324. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai by exercising his suo motu power of revision revised the order of the appellate authority by holding that the assessing authority was right in bringing the sales turnover of "Karuvelan wood" to tax. The petitioner filed appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be classified as "firewood". It would certainly burn if set on fire. But every wood that burns is not "firewood". Even the valuable logs of wood like teak wood or Mahogany or for that purpose, even the sandal wood logs are also burnt in various occasions, which cannot be determinative and considered those woods as "firewood". Even in the contract entered into by the petitioner with the Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers limited, it is not stated as "firewood". The contract was very specific for "Karuvelan wood". The wood sold are treated as firewood, because they are used as firewood and hence, the user as firewood is also relevant. If the same commodity is sold for erection of pandal, then it is not regarded as firewood, though ultimately after the commodity is used by the contractor for erection of pandal, he may sell them as firewood to somebody else. The user of the goods by him in such a case is not firewood. Therefore, it is necessary for the assessee to prove with certain materials to show that the goods sold by the assessee were sold as firewood, especially when the "Karuvelan wood" can be used for multiple purposes. It can be used as a pulp wood or as pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u General Sales Tax Act. After taking into consideration the materials placed before it, the division Bench held that the term "firewood" can be used only when the part suitable for use as firewood is used for that purpose, and such user is its primary user. If such wood is put to other use, such other use would not render firewood into something other than firewood, unless wood is classified in the statute with reference to its actual use, such as wood used for making pulp. The size of the casuarina purchased in that case was suitable for use as firewood and the division Bench further held that when the exemption notification merely uses the term firewood without any condition or qualification, it must necessarily follow that all goods which answer the description, and fall within the scope of that term were entitled to exemption. The fact that the goods which fall within that exemption are used for a purpose other than that for which the goods generally belonging to that class are used, would not take those goods out of that class, in the absence of any other requirement in the statute. In paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment, the division Bench has stated thus: "What is taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein the petitioner entered into an agreement with a rayon manufacturing company for selling certain quantities of approved firewood as per the specifications agreed to between the parties. The petitioner claimed that what was sold to the manufacturing company was only firewood which was exempt from sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the fact that the buyer utilised the same as raw material for the manufacture of rayon would not in any way alter the character of the goods sold by him. The division Bench of this Court held that: "...........even though the agreement entered into between the parties described the goods as 'approved firewood', still the specifications for the supply of the goods clearly indicated that neither party intended that the goods should be sold or bought only as firewood. See [2003] 130 STC 41. Therefore, those goods could not be called firewood at all and were not exempt from tax." 14.. The other decision is Malayalee Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1983] 52 STC 3 (Mad.). In that case also, the eucalyptus trees were sold by the assessee, a forest coupe contractor describing it as "fuel coupe" to one P.R. Lakshmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
