Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (12) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the gross turnover on the ground that the wire rods and goods manufactured, i.e., wires are the same commodity and are covered under sub-clause (xv) of section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner since had paid tax on the purchase of wire rods, no tax therefore, was payable on the sale of wires. The respondent No. 1 by an order of assessment dated June 30, 1995 disallowed the claim for the consignment of sale of goods to Delhi. The claim under section 5(2)(a)(v) however, was allowed considering the judgment of this Tribunal, that wire rods and wires were the same commodity. 3. An appeal was filed before the respondent No. 2 disputing the rejection of the claim of consignment of goods sold at Delhi and consequently .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under the same sub-clause (xv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Moreover, the part of the assessment order where the claim of exemption was allowed, was also not a subjectmatter for decision by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 2, in appeal. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 cannot levy tax by merely changing the opinion to the effect that wire and wire rods were different commercial commodity. The part of the assessment order which was never challenged in the appeal cannot merge with the appellate order. The notice to review the order by rejecting exemption allowed under section 5(2)(a)(va) as proposed, is therefore, illegal and not warranted under the doctrine of merger. It is, therefore, submitted that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 31, 1993. In the said assessment order learned ACCT/CD allowed Rs. 9,45,30,178.77 as deduction from C.T. under section 5(2)(a)(va) being sale of wires which were manufactured from wire rods purchased in W.B. on payment of tax. Wire rod and wires are two different commercial commodity and wire rod is converted to wire through manufacturing activities. So, the said claim of deduction is not available to you in terms of provision of section 5(2)(a)(va) of the Act. So Rs. 9,45,30,178.77 is required to be taxed at 4 per cent under section 5(1)(c) of the Act. For that my appellate order will be revised to impose tax on Rs. 9,45,30,178.77 under section 5(1)(c) of the Act." 10.. Admittedly, the petitioner is carrying on business of steel wires .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me Court. 12.. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad also held in a case of Hyderabad Wire Allied Products v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in [1999] 115 STC 286 that the judgment dealing directly with the entry in question if doubted in later judgment dealing with different entry cannot be held that the previous judgment was overruled. At page 290, thus the honourable Court held as follows: "It is true that a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting the entry 'hides and skins whether in a raw or dressed state' was not inclined to place reliance on the Telangana Industries case [1994] 93 STC 187 (SC) in view of the earlier Constitution Bench decision explaining the difference between raw hides and skins and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder passed by the respondent No. 2. The appellate authority, hence, cannot review the order passed by the assessing authority. In support of his contention, the learned lawyer relied on the decisions reported in [1967] 19 STC 144 (Mad.) (State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.), [1975] 35 STC 601 (AP) (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Rama Laxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill) and [1984] 55 STC 54 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sanawad Co-operative Society). The general principles of merger in all these decided cases are that any appeal, if it is preferred against any order passed by the lower authority, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. Therefore, the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates