9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered its certificate for cancellation of the same on the plea that the goods dealt in by it were exempt from sales tax with effect from 14th December, 1957, under entry No. 17 of the Second Schedule referred to in section 6 of the Act. On inquiries it was found that the petitioner was dealing in pure silk fabrics also and as such this plea of the petitioner for cancellation of the registration certificate did not find favour with the assessing authority. The said assessing authority by order dated 2nd August, 1980, (sic) found that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax in respect of turnover of sales of pure silk sarees which were not exempt from sales tax under entry No. 17. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred to this Court, for opinion, by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi. The only question which arises for our consideration is whether the Commissioner and the learned Additional District Judge were right in holding that the sarees manufactured by the petitioner did fall within the definition of "pure silk fabrics" and in terms of language used in entry No. 17 the same were liable to sales tax. Entry No. 17 of the Second Schedule at the relevant time was as follows: "Entry 17. All varieties of cotton, woollen, rayon or artificial silk fabrics, but not including real silk fabrics." The Commissioner and the learned Additional District Judge relying on the statement of a partner of the petitioner-firm came to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner because it was found as a fact that the sarees manufactured were woven partly with pure silk, partly with art silk and with cotton lace. In the present case before us, there is no such finding and on the other hand the definite findings recorded by the Commissioner and the Additional District Judge are to the effect that the sarees manufactured by the petitioner are of pure silk fabrics. It was contended that the authorities should not have relied on the statement of the partner of the firm who was a nontechnical partner and had made an erroneous statement. The same contention was raised before the learned District judge who found as a fact that the statement made by the partner was not erroneous and the petitioner-firm was trying to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
