1976 (1) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment. In respect of the canteen sales, the assessing officer and the appellate authority in the view that the canteen itself is run by the assessees and not by the employees on a co-operative basis and that, therefore, not liable to be exempted, included the same in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessees on the strength of the decision of this court in Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Thirumagal Mills Limited[1967] 20 S.T.C. 287. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revenue that 20 Sales Tax Cases 287 is no longer good law and in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. [1973] 31 S.T.C. 426 (S.C.)., even t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clearly wrong in view of the clear language used in the Government order extracted above. Even in respect of a canteen run by an employer under a statutory obligation if it was run without profit-motive and the employer subsidises at least 25 per cent of the total expenses, the employer would be entitled to claim exemption in respect of that turnover. Whether the orders of the assessing officer and the appellate authorities could not be sustained on the ground that the Government order will apply only to canteens run by the employees on co-operative basis, the learned Government Pleader contended that there is no evidence to show that the employer subsidised at least 25 per cent of the total expenses incurred and the only fact we get in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sales return of Rs. 4,673.46 the only point was that the credit notes issued by the assessees were not possible of verification with reference to the sales to which they related. It appears that the sale bills covered a larger quantity of the goods and the credit notes only for a smaller quantity. The assessing officer and the appellate authority rejected this claim only on the ground that in respect of some of the items, the sales were stated to be in the previous year and the credit notes also did not refer to the sale bills concerned. We have looked into the orders of the assessing officer and the appellate authority. We are satisfied on the facts and circumstances of this case that whatever material that was possible the assessees have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X