9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment Act of 1984. The question of law referred for the decision of this Court, is the following: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the containers were not taxable without considering whether there was implied sale or not?" The assessee was a dealer carrying on business of manufacture and sale of snuff. For the year 1968-69, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment being aggrieved by this decision, went to the Board of Revenue, which held that the goods sold, namely, snuff, being exempt from tax, its packing material, i.e., tin containers, for which, no separate charge was levied, were also exempt from tax in accordance with the last proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The revision of the department was acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om a Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Moolchand Jainarain [1987] 64 STC 300; [1985] 15 STL (Raj) 257. This conclusion alone is sufficient to hold that there is no ground for interference in this revision. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since none has appeared for the non-petitioner to oppose, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
