9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar and come under item No. 1 of Schedule III to the Act and sales thereof are liable to tax at 2 per cent.? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the account books of the applicant as unreliable was justified and assessment of the applicant according to best judgment was in order? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment of tax on sales of products of sugar estimated at Rs. 80,750 by this Tribunal was legal and in order?" 2.. The assessee is, in the main, a dealer in sugar and sugar products known as "Batasa", "Chiranji", "Mishri", etc. He has two shops at Jabalpur, one for wholesale sales and another for retail sales. For each of the shops, he has a separate set o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sales Tax who, however, dismissed that appeal. The two contentions were again pressed in the second appeal taken to the Board of Revenue which too rejected them. The Board, however, reduced the estimated taxable turnover from Rs. 1,23,958 to Rs. 80,750. Thereupon, at the instance of the assessee, the Board has made this reference. 3.. In regard to the first question, the Government Advocate, who appeared for the Revenue, conceded that sugar is the only constituent of the products called "Batasa", "Chiranji", "Mishri", etc. The point, therefore, is whether these products, which are wholly made of sugar, can be regarded as sugar within the meaning of Entry 41 of the list of goods exempted from tax as enumerated in Schedule I to the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and applied by the Supreme Court in Ramavatar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1325. and also in Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King [1952] 1 Dom. L.R. 385. and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Laddumal Jangilal Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 276 of 1962, decided on 21st December, 1962; [1964] 15 S.T.C. 54. (4) [1959] 10 S.T.C. 270. It is obvious that sugar as understood in the popular sense does not include products of sugar like "Batasa", "Chiranji", "Mishri", etc. So, in Jethmal Ramswaroop v. The State(4), Wanchoo, C.J. (as he then was) observed: "Turning briefly to the merits of the case, we are of opinion that there is no force in the contentions raised by the applicants, Misri, Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbining ingredients". In view of the meaning given to the words "sweetmeat" and "confection", we are of opinion that "Batasa", "Chiranji" and "Mishri" are not sweetmeats within the meaning of Schedule III to the Act. As we have already indicated, our opinion receives support from the observations made in Jethmal Ramswaroop v. The State[1959] 10 S.T.C. 270. 5.. The second and the third questions relate to rejection of the assessee's account books and the estimate of sugar utilised for manufacturing "Batasa" etc. Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that, in rejecting the books and estimating the sugar used for manufacturing "Batasa" etc. from 10th March, 1960, the taxing authorities have acted arbitrarily and without any rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
