9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es timber. He purchases timber logs from registered dealers or from Forest Department. At the time of his purchase sales tax leviable on the timber logs will be collected by the concerned seller from the petitioner. These timber logs are cut into several sizes in the sawing machine. Thereafter petitioner manufactures packing shooks. According to the petitioner these packing shooks are nothing but cut size planks, which in turn are used in the manufacture of packing boxes. For the period 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986, the petitioner had filed his taxable sales turnover. The petitioner had paid tax at the rate of 2 per cent in respect of the sales of packing shooks. The Additional Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and in common parlance also packing shooks will not be equated with the timber. These packing shooks are used to prepare packing boxes. According to the learned Government Pleader, the timber has a distinct quality and meaning and a timber in log form is different from a packing shook. The court as usual is faced with the problem of attributing a proper meaning to the word of "timber" and "packing shook" to find out whether packing shook" would fall within 'timber in cut or manufactured form of all sizes and shapes", as described in Serial No. 45(b) of the Second Schedule. 5.. In the decision reported in [1973] 32 STC 66 (Commissioner Sales Tax v. B.M. Wood Works), a Bench of the Allahabad High Court opined that packing boxes made of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft-overs were to be treated as fire-wood. The said decision will not aid the Revenue in any other manner. The learned Government Pleader also contended that all wood is not timber though all timber is wood. 7.. The distinction sought to be made out by the learned Government Pleader looks to me inconsequential in the above referred Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal's case [1988] 68 STC 324 (SC). The question before the Supreme Court was entirely different. The Supreme Court was not concerned with the generic meaning of timber while considering the meaning of cut piece of eucalyptus tree. 8.. The decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. case [1985] 60 STC 213 is quite clear when it says that the timber includes all its sizes and shapes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 45 in the year 1989 when the Legislature specifically excluded casuarina, eucalyptus, etc., from the concept of timber. If packing shooks are to be excluded from the concept of timber of all sizes and shapes in cut or manufactured form, Legislature would have certainly clarified by excluding them. The word "all" found in serial No. 45 will have to be given its importance and due meaning. In these circumstances, I cannot agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 11.. Consequently, the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. However, W.P. No. 3355 of 1987 has to be dismissed as unnecessary. It is accordingly dismissed. All other writ petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. Writ petitions allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
