1994 (9) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eaning clear. The said amendment is indicative of legislative intent that the view taken in Ganesh Prasad Dixit [1969 (2) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is the correct one. Be that as it may, it is not brought to our notice that other State Legislature have brought about similar amendments. The controversy, therefore, survives and is bound to arise under one or the other State enactment.
JEEVAN REDDY B.P., SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND PARIPOORNAN K.S. JJ. T.V.S. N. Chari, M. Vijabhaskar and Ms. A. Sunitha Rao, for the appellant. A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER Heard learned counsel for both the parties. A direct conflict arises between the decisions of two B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld mean: (i) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or (ii) consumes such goods otherwise. However, in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC); [1980] 3 SCR 1271, Pathak, J., speaking for himself, Bhagwati and Tulzapurkar, JJ., construed the very same words occurring in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act under section 5A in a different manner. The learned Judge observed: "Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that even if no manufacturing process is involved, the case still falls within section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because the statutory provision speaks not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The said amendment is indicative of legislative intent that the view taken in Ganesh Prasad Dixit [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC); [1969] 3 SCR 490 is the correct one. Be that as it may, it is not brought to our notice that other State Legislature have brought about similar amendments. The controversy, therefore, survives and is bound to arise under one or the other State enactment. We may also indicate how the question arises in this case. The respondent here is a construction company engaged in building of flats and buildings. It purchases raw material like sand and stone. The sale of sand, stone, etc., is not taxable in the hands of the sellers under the Act. Purchase tax was sought to be levied on the respondent in respect of the said purchase .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X