9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The period of assessment is 1973-74. The quantum of turnover is not in dispute but the rate at which the turnover is exigible to sales tax is under challenge. Though at one stage, the turnover of gold and silver ornaments was being challenged as not exigible to tax under serial No. 27 of the schedule of taxable goods, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bavchand Co. v. State of Orissa [1976] 38 STC 42 that has no more been agitated. The only other question over which dispute has been raised by the assessee and sustained up to this stage is whether gold ornaments studded with imitation stones/artificial precious stones were jewellery so as to be exigible to tax at the rate prescribed under serial No. 22 of the schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aments made or sold by jewellers, especially precious stones in mounting; jewels collectively or as a form of adornment.' Thus the dictionary meaning seems to indicate that though ordinarily precious stones must be an essential ingredient of the ornament in order to make it jewellery there is no invariable rule that an ornament containing imitation stones must on no account be treated as jewellery. The value of the imitation stones set is wholly immaterial in deciding this question. Thus, the dictionary meaning given to that expression shows that the interpretation put by the learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is incorrect." In a later Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Harekrishna Das Madhavji Co. [1970] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th precious material of the classification indicated in the serial. We find force in this submission. Gold ornaments would have been exigible to tax under serial No. 27. Admittedly that rate was lower than the rate contemplated in serial No. 22. Since emphasis in serial No. 22 is on the precious character of the studding material, imitation stone which admittedly is not of high valuation would indeed not come within the ambit of the serial. In State of Orissa v. Jamula Srirangam [1961] 12 STC 135 as pointed out by the learned Chief justice in the later case State of Orissa v. Harekrishna Das Madhavji Co. [1970] 25 STC 509, imitation stone was also taken into account in view of the language used in serial No. 24, but for it, there was no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
