1951 (12) TMI 8 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the list prepared in July 1947 by the Sales Tax Officer and its applicability to the assessment in question.
2. Entitlement to exemption under the original certificates of registration for ropeways and their parts as "colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal."
3. Authority of the Sales Tax Officer to determine exempted goods and the preparation of the list in the prescribed manner.
4. Interpretation of the specified items in the registration certificates to include ropeways and their parts.
5. Obligation of the Sales Tax Officer to make deductions under Rule 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules.
6. Legality of the Board of Revenue's refusal to address point (f) in its revision powers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the List Prepared in July 1947:
The first issue concerns whether the list prepared in July 1947 by the Sales Tax Officer and incorporated in the registration certificates of the purchasing dealers can govern the assessment in question. The judgment concluded that the list prepared in July 1947 could not govern the assessment for the period in question, as it was prepared after the assessment period. The Sales Tax Authorities used this list only to understand the term "colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal" and not to affect the legality of the assessment.

2. Entitlement to Exemption:
The second issue was whether the assessee could claim an exemption for ropeways and their parts under the terms of the original certificates of registration, which stated "colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal." The court held that the determination of whether ropeways and their parts fall under this category is a question of fact. The Sales Tax Authorities, after considering evidence including the opinion of the Chief Inspector of Mines, concluded that ropeways and their parts were not directly used in raising coal. The court found no reason to interfere with this factual determination.

3. Authority of the Sales Tax Officer:
The third issue questioned whether the Sales Tax Officer had the power to determine the goods exempted from taxation and whether the list was prepared in the prescribed manner. The court found that the Sales Tax Officer did not prepare a list to determine exempted goods but held that ropeways and their parts did not fall within the exemption provided in the registration certificates. Consequently, the question of whether the list was prepared in the prescribed manner was deemed irrelevant.

4. Interpretation of Specified Items:
The fourth issue involved whether the items listed in the registration certificates, such as "ropes and strings, bolts, nuts, rivets, rods, angles, electric fittings and appliances," covered ropeways and their parts. The court found that the Sales Tax Authorities had considered whether the components of ropeways could be included under "colliery stores directly used in the raising of coal" but concluded that they did not. The court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the items must be directly used in raising coal.

5. Obligation to Make Deductions:
The fifth issue was whether the Sales Tax Officer was bound to make deductions under Rule 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules for labor charges involved in installing the ropeways. The court noted that the assessee did not claim this deduction in its return and did not provide materials to support such a claim. The court held that the Sales Tax Officer was not bound to make the deduction, and the Board of Revenue was justified in not considering this point in its revision powers.

6. Legality of the Board's Refusal:
The sixth issue addressed whether the Board of Revenue was warranted in law to refuse to consider point (f) in its revision powers. The court found that the Board of Revenue was within its rights to refuse to consider a claim that was not made earlier and for which full materials were not available. The refusal was deemed lawful.

Conclusion:
The court answered the reference questions accordingly, with the assessee failing on all substantial questions. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing to the Sales Tax Authorities.

← Previous Next →