Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1980 (7) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... finding that silk articles dealt in by the petitioner were valued more than Rs. 10 a piece? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Tribunal was correct in upholding the assessment of tax on tasar, kantia and matha dealt in by the assessee?" 2.. The assessee carries on business in handloom cloth, sarees including silk, tasar and matha goods. Its principal place of business is at Puri and there is a branch at Cuttack. The Cuttack branch is separately registered and bears registration mark CUIW 740. The relevant period is 1971-72. The petitioner returned a gross turnover of Rs. 3,51,149.96, but showed taxable turnover at nil. The assessing officer held that sale of silk, tasar and matha articles we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be handspun and handwoven. It has further been defined that handspun and handwoven woollen and silken materials are also khadi. In view of these definitions of the Khadi Act, the goods dealt in by the appellant being both handspun and handwoven, the forums below should have treated these materials to come under the purview of entry No. 24 of the tax-free list. I may say that it is true that the definition of the Khadi Act supports the contention of the appellant. But the said reasoning cannot apply while considering the taxability of the articles dealt in by the appellant. Entry No. 8 of the taxable list of goods other than luxury goods reads as follows: 'All silk goods including all mill-made or powerloom woven pure silk fabrics and pure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion for all silk goods. To avoid ambiguity, it specifically brings into its fold what is excepted in serial No. 19. There is force in the submission of the learned standing counsel that it had never been intended that silk goods of whatever origin was to be exempted from tax. If that were so, keeping the manner in which provision was made in serial No. 9 above in view, the learned standing counsel contends that in serial No. 24 an inclusive provision could have been indicated to cover handwoven silk. Silk yarn is made liable to tax, but handspun silk yarn has been exempted. The assessee's counsel has strenuously contended that "khadi" has a statutory definition under the Khaddar (Protection of Name) Act, 1950, where it has been said: "T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f all kinds including pure silk cloth, khadi woollen goods and handspun yarn sold by dealers duly certified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or Akhil Bharatiya Charkha Sangh." The language of the present entry makes it obviously clear that the intention was that all kinds of khadi cloth were to be exempted from tax and khadi had been used to connote the manufacturing process, i. e., handspun yarn and handwoven cloth. We have been asked to take note of the fact that entry No. 19 was suitably amended as the authorities under the statute did not give effect to the intention of the State Government. We are inclined to agree that khadi had been used in serial No. 24 to convey the manufacturing process and covered not only cotton .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that khadi silk fell under serial No. 8. At one point of time we were thinking that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench and we should not take upon us the responsibility of distinguishing our earlier decision. But we are impressed with the argument that the statutory definitions in the three Central Acts preceding the notification in question had not been placed before us on the earlier occasion and there has been no analysis of the respective entries to find out the ambit of inclusion and the purview of exclusion. In the circumstances, we do not think there is any necessity of referring the matter to a larger Bench. The decision in the Orissa Co-operative Handicrafts Corporation case(1) must be confined to its own facts and in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates