SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(All) 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. Misra, J.
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX - Appellant
Versus
ORKEY METAL INDUSTRIES - Respondents
Sales Tax Revision 101 Of 1988
Decided On : 04/14/1988

Sillis and gullis manufactured by karkhanedars are part of utensils within the meaning of the notifications issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and are therefore entitled to exemption from sales tax.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - Exemption - Karkhanedars - Interpretation of Notification - Sillis and gullis - Whether part of utensils - Held, yes.

Fact of the Case:

The assessees, manufacturers of sillis and gullis, claimed exemption from sales tax as karkhanedars under various notifications issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) granted the exemption, but the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which were dismissed. The Commissioner then filed revisions before the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that sillis and gullis are part of utensils within the meaning of the notifications and that the assessees were entitled to exemption as karkhanedars.

Issues: Whether sillis and gullis are part of utensils within the meaning of the notifications issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the terms "utensil" and "part" as used in the notifications and found that sillis and gullis are integral parts of utensils and are therefore covered by the exemption granted to karkhanedars.

Final Decision: The revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax were dismissed.

R. R. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE 28 revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the exemption granted by the Sales Tax Tribunal to the various assessees prior to the Notification No. ST-II-7994/x--6 (31)/1975--U. P. Act XV/48, Order-80, dated 30th September, 1980. Learned counsel for the parties agree that before the Sales Tax Tribunal, the leading case was the case of orkey Metal Industries, Moradabad. A revision filed against the same has been numbered as sales Tax Revision No. 939 of 1986. The controversy involved in all these revisions is the same and the parties agree that all of them may be taken up together for disposal. Accordingly I propose to dispose of them by a common judgment.

( 2 ) IN these cases, the assessees have been dealing in some cases in gulli, in some cases in silli and in some cases in gulli and silli both. The assessment years involved are up to the assessment year 1978-79. The various assessees had claimed exemption and had moved for the issue of exemption certificates under Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. These applications were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), however, held that the assessees were entitled to exemption as "karkhanedars" under Notification No. ST-5263/x--902 (16)-52, dated 13th September, 1971 as amended by Notification No. ST-II-8446/x--1 (2)-75 dated 1st October, 1975 and Notification No. ST-II-8453/ X--1 (2)-75, dated 1st October, 1975. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Sales tax preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal but all the said appeals have been dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Aggrieved against the view taken by the Sales Tax Tribunal, the commissioner of Sales Tax is in revisions before this Court.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) THE contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is that the Notification No. ST-II-7994/x--6 (31)-1975--U. P. Act XV/48, Order-80, dated 30th September, 1980 which came into force on 1st October, 1980 will not apply in all these cases and the Tribunal is in error in referring to the same while deciding the controversy involved for the assessment years in question. Be that as it may, it is the admitted case of the parties that the interpretation of the notification No. ST-II-8446/x--1 (2)-75, dated 1st October 1975, Notification No. ST-II-8449/x--1 (2)-75, dated 1st October 1975 and Notification No. ST-II-8453/x--1 (2)-76, dated 1st October 1975 is involved in the present revisions. The submission made by the learned standing Counsel is that gulli and silli are not "utensils" within the meaning of the aforesaid two notifications and, therefore, whenever the assessees make a sale of the items known as gullis and sillis themselves, they are not "karkhanedars" within the meaning of those notifications vis-a-vis the said goods. The said notifications are reproduced below:

( 5 ) NOTIFICATION No. ST-II-8446/x--1 (2)-75, dated 1st October, 1975 (published in U. P. Gazette extraordinary, dated 1st October, 1975): in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with Section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make with effect from October 2,1975, the following amendment in Government Notification No. ST-II-4949/x--10 (2)-74, dated May 30, 1975 (S. No. 127):

Amendment.--In the Schedule to the aforesaid notification, after


serial No.

23 the following shall be inserted, namely:

Serial Description of goods point at which Rate of tax

No. tax shall be levied

24. Sports shoes having spikes, nails, M or I 5 per cent or studs embedded in their soles.

25. Linseed oil M or I2 per cent

26. Jute and hemp goods M or i 4 per cent

27. Oils of all kinds other than M or I 3 per centthose covered by any othernotification issued under the Act.

28. Art brasswares and utensil





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top