1984 (7) TMI 336 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of entry 10 of the notification dated 10th May, 1956 regarding exemption for products sold in sealed containers
- Whether the sale of perk and butter by the assessee constitutes a sale in sealed containers
- Application of legal precedent from Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G.G. Industries and Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India in determining if the products were sold in sealed containers

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of ALLAHABAD involves three revisions by the assessee, a Government undertaking engaged in the manufacture of dairy products. The revisions pertain to the assessment year 1971-72 and two periods of the assessment year 1975-76. The key question raised in these revisions is whether the sale of perk and butter by the assessee qualifies as a product sold in a sealed container under entry 10 of the notification dated 10th May, 1956. The assessee argued that the products were not sold in sealed containers but were loosely wrapped in butter/rice papers and placed in wooden boxes and tin containers for safe transportation. The Revenue contended that the products were sold to various dealers in sealed containers, excluding them from the exemption.

The Court considered the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G.G. Industries and Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India. In the former case, the Supreme Court defined "sealed container" as one that is closed in a manner making access to the contents impossible without breaking the fastening. Applying this definition to the present case, the Court held that the products sold by the assessee in tin containers, further packed in wooden boxes, constituted sales in sealed containers. The Court rejected the argument that the containers were used solely for transportation, emphasizing that the manner in which the goods were sold to the dealers was crucial.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the revisions as no other grounds were pressed before it. The judgment highlights the importance of how the goods were sold by the assessee to the dealers, rather than focusing on the ultimate sale to consumers. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, concluding the matter before the High Court of ALLAHABAD.