TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. [2009 (4) TMI 811 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which is the same company which approached initially being a manufacturer/producer of “Gypsum Board” before the Additional commissioner. The case before the Bombay High Court was identical to the product in the instant petition - It was held that the “Gypsum Board” is falling within the entry 41 of Schedule C with a rate of 4% and not the residuary rate of 12.5%. The “Gypsum Board” being manufactured and sold would certainly be covered by entry No. 56 “Gypsum in all its form” - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - S. B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference No. 9/2013, 15/2013, 10/2013, 11/2013, 12/2013, 13/2013 And 14/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2017 - Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka J. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Gypsum Board cannot be covered under entry 56 of Schedule (IV) and the product is entirely different and accordingly was liable to pay tax @ 12.5%. While in other petitions in the assessment adopting the same line of reasoning, the Assessing Officer not only charged tax @ 12.5 % but also interest as well as levied penalty u/Sec. 61 of the Act. 4. The Said assessments were assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (A) who also did not interfere with the arguments of the assessee and dismissed all the appeals. 5. The Tax Board in further appeal against the order u/Sec. 36 passed by the Additional Commissioner so also the Dy. Commissioner (A) who by then decided the first appeal but the Tax Board also did not interfere in the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Sales Tax, Delhi (1972) 30 STC 88, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Mattancherry, and Others (1972) 30 STC 93, The State of Gujrat Vs. Sakarwala Brothers (1967) 19 STC 24 Kapildeoram Baijnath Prosad Vs. J.K. Das and Others (1954) 5 STC 365. 7. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the revenue contended that admittedly, the Gypsum in its raw form was mixed with various ingredients and once it was mixed with various ingredients, an entirely distinct product came into existence of form and by no stretch of imagination Gypsum Board could be covered as falling within the entry 56 of Schedule (IV) and the Additional Commissioner in order u/Sec. 36 and the Assessing Officer in the regular asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll kinds and Gypsum Board being an item of Gypsum, the same should certainly cover in the aforesaid entry No. 56 of Schedule (IV). 11. The Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs. India Gypsum Ltd. (supra) which is the same company which approached initially being a manufacturer/producer of Gypsum Board before the Additional commissioner. The case before the Bombay High Court was identical to the product in the instant petition. The entry in Maharashtra Sales Tax reads as under:- C41-Gypsum of all forms descriptions 11.1 The Bombay High Court after analyzing the various judgments including the dictionary meaning and in particular form , in all forms and taking into consideration the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition continues to be gypsum. The form is a board. It is described as a gypsum board and not gypsum . Considering the entry and to give meaning to the legislative intent, gypsum board, which is gypsum in board form and described as gypsum board will have to be held to fall under entry C41 . 12. Thus, the Bombay High Court held that the Gypsum Board is falling within the entry 41 of Schedule C with a rate of 4% and not the residuary rate of 12.5%. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Trutuf Safety Glass Industries (supra) was considering the case of Glass and Glasswares including optical glass in all its form but excluding ornamented or cut glass bangles where the said assessee was manufacturing toughened safety glass including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entry, it should be interpreted as it is understood by the persons dealing in them. It held that the articles manufactured by the assessee cannot be described as glass or glasswares. The view of the high Court would have been correct had the expression in all forms not succeeded the expression glass and glasswares. 14. The other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner which has taken into consideration in all its form has held that it is wide enough to cover such other items within its scope. 15. Counsel for the revenue has been unable to distinguish the aforesaid judgments or to bring on record any contrary judgment in this regard. 16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, in my view, the finding reached by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
