2007 (10) TMI 663 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed covers.
2. Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun.
3. Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed covers

The revision petitioner, a dealer in bakery products, claimed exemption from sales tax on the grounds that his sales were second sales. However, upon inspection by the Intelligence wing, it was found that the petitioner sold bakery products under a brand name or trade mark. The assessing authority reopened the assessment and concluded that the sales were exigible to tax u/s 5(2) of the Act. The first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the petitioner used printed covers with the bakery's name and address, which constituted sales under a brand name. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that the petitioner was a brand name holder and thus the sales were not exempt as second sales.

Issue 2: Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun

The petitioner argued for exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun. However, this issue was not raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal. The High Court held that new issues not argued before lower authorities cannot be raised for the first time in a revision petition. Therefore, this contention was rejected.

Issue 3: Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal

The petitioner contended that the addition sustained by the Tribunal was unreasonable. The High Court, however, found no merit in this argument, as the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the facts and upheld the assessment based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

The High Court rejected the revision petition, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The questions of law framed by the assessee were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.