Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (5) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. The assessments involved in this case are for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The appellant's case is that bed sheet made of powerloom cloth is essentially cloth as such and it is entitled to exemption under the specific entry provided under Item 10 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act.   However, the finding of the Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned Single Judge following the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1980) 46 STC 256, is that bed sheet is a product made o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at 8%. We do not think there can be any dispute on this proposition because entries of the First Schedule providing for rate of tax on various commodities are not thoroughly exhaustive though most of the generally produced and traded commodities are specifically covered therein. However, the residuary entry providing rate of tax on commodities other than those stated in the First Schedule only indicates that there are unenumerated items which are taxable under the general entry. So much so, the question whether exemption is available to a commodity has to be found out from the exemption entry itself and the scope of it will have to be considered with reference to other entries in the same schedule. For easy reference we extract hereunder E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d "cloth" to cover products such as bed covers, toilet covers, towels, napkins etc. made of cloth. The contention of the appellant is that bed sheet is essentially cloth and it is only specified dimension of the woven cloth cut and stitched on either side to prevent tread loosing and escaping. Certainly, the value addition is not significant because the price of bed sheet is essentially the price of the cloth and not due to the value addition made by conversion of the same into bed sheet. We cannot take the view that the legislature is not aware of the subtle distinction between cloth or bed sheet or bed cover made of such cloth. However, when the legislature intends to treat bed sheet, bed cover, towels etc. as separate products though m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under any of the entries of the Third Schedule, and so much so, the same cannot be taken as covered by exemption under Entry 10, which covers only cloth woven on powerloom. 8. Even though learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Division Bench decisions of the Orissa High Court in Radhika v. State of Orissa, reported in 39 STC 93 and of this Court in Radha's Fancy Piece Goods Merchants v. State of Kerala, reported in 48 STC 361, we find that these decisions are neither applicable on facts nor could be accepted as laying down the correct law. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken a contrary view in the case of another assessee in declaring exemption on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that when exemption is granted to handloom cloth along with it even readymade garments made of handloom cloth are covered by the said exemption entry i.e. Item 27 of the Third Schedule. So much so, we are of the view that Entry 10 of the Third Schedule is not intended to cover any products made from cloth such as bed sheets, bed covers, towels, napkins etc.. In our view the learned Single Judge rightly held so. Even though learned counsel for the appellant prayed for waiver of interest, learned Government Pleader opposed stating that atleast after the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant had no justification to withhold payment of tax. We feel, since the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in another case, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates