9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no manufacturing process is involved in the packing of mahul patta and as such no new commodity has come into existence which can be subjected to tax?" 2.. The assessment in question relates to two periods, namely, March 9, 1977 to December 31, 1977 and January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978. The licensee is a dealer in mahul patta. For the two periods aforesaid, he had taken on contract from the State Government the right to collect mahul patta from the forest. He paid sales tax at the time of purchase to the State Government and sold the same partly inside the State and partly in inter-State trade. In regard to sale made in the course of inter-State commerce, he claimed exemption under Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y goods or classes of goods as may be specified or the tax shall be calculated at such lower rate as may be mentioned in the notification. 4.. Notification dated October 27, 1959, is one issued by the State Government in exercise of the aforesaid power. The notification reads thus: "Whereas the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers, conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956), the State Government hereby directs that no tax under the said Act, shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in respect of sales by him of any goods, other than declared goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to tax under any sales tax law in force in the State. There are similar notifications issued covering the period up to December 31, 1978. 5.. The only contention urged is that the goods which were the subjectmatter of inter-State trade, namely, mahul patta, were not already subjected to tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It appears that as a matter of fact, for acquiring right to pluck mahul leaves from the Forest Department, the assessee paid consideration and sales tax was collected from him. Learned Government Advocate, relying on the decision in Anandilal Naraindas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 22 STC 19, submitted that the transaction between the Government and the assessee was not a transaction of sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
