9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gunny bags in which salt is sold by the assessee?" The assessee, M/s. Bisoda Salt Works, Nawa (District Nagaur), is non-petitioner No. 1. It is a partnership firm. It carries business of salt. The salt was sold by the dealer-assessee after packing it in gunny bags in the course of interState trade and commerce. The assessing authority assessed the sale of gunny bags for the period 1966-67 at Rs. 52,000 and levied Central sales tax at 2 per cent on the sales, amounting to Rs. 1,270.75 up to 30th June, 1966, and at 3 per cent thereafter. The appeal was filed by the dealer-assessee. By the order (exhibit 2) dated 19th November, 1979, the appeal was dismissed. A revision was filed by the dealer-assessee to the Board. The learned single Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Amendment Act, as this reference was pending on 1st May, 1985, it was treated and heard as revision under section 15 of the Act, as substituted by the Amendment Act. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the sales tax department, as nobody has appeared on behalf of the dealer-assessee. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the sales tax department that the following proviso to section 5 of the Act which has come into force from 24th July, 1967, is not applicable to the case of the dealer-assessee: "Provided also that when any goods are sold, packed in any materials, the tax shall be leviable on the sale of such packing materials (when not separately charged for) at the same rate (if any) as is applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board and affirmed by the Division Bench of the Board is correct. We are of opinion that no sales tax is payable on the gunny bags in respect of the relevant period when the salt was sold by the dealer-assessee passed in them. In this view of the matter, the reference application which has been treated and heard as revision under section 15 of the Act is substituted by the Amendment Act, has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the dealer-assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. Appendix [The decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court consisting of S.K. MAL LODHA and S.N. BHARGAVA, JJ., in Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Ajmer, and Another v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th November, 1964, to 9th November, 1965, non-petitioner No. 1 sold salt packed in gunny bags in the course of inter-State trade and commerce while selling the salt, gunny bags in which it was packed are also said to have been sold and their price was included in the sale price of salt. The assessing authority (C.T.O., Circle B, Jodhpur) passed the assessment order on 31st July, 1969. It was held that though sale of salt was exempt from tax, gunny bags in which it was packed was not exempt. He estimated the value of gunny bags (bardana) at Rs. 68,144.55 and taxed the sale at 2 per cent. The amount of tax came to be Rs. 1,362.90. Non-petitioner No. 1 had already deposited Rs. 1,155.68. Nonpetitioner No. 1 went in appeal. The Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Jhalawar 1978 RRD 78. After the dismissal of the application under section 15(1), the present application was filed on 25th March, 1980. In view of section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984), which has come into force from 1st May, 1985, the application under section 15(2)(b) of the Act has been treated as a revision under section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. The revision lies on a question of law. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the assessing authority, and Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for dealer-non-petitioner No. 1. The sales effected by dealer-non-petitioner No. 1 were of salt with "bardana". Dealer-non-petitioner No. 1 claimed deduction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate sale transactions in relation to the bardana." It is clear that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) recorded a finding of fact that there were no separate sale transactions in relation to the bardana. The Division Bench of the Board in the special appeal has observed in its order dated 16th February, 1979, that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the bardana was not sold separately and this finding was concurred with by the single Member of the Board. According to the Division Bench no other view on this question of fact, namely, that the bardana was not separately sold by dealer-non-petitioner No. 1 while effecting the sale of salt is possible. It is, thus, clear that there is a finding of fact arrived at by the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
