9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses was subject to tax at 2 per cent. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was partly allowed and it was contended that the rate of tax on sale of pulses is payable at 1 per cent because the notification dated March 9, 1970 was superseded by notification dated April 26, 1972 which was rescinded by notification dated May 9, 1972 and accordingly the notification dated March 9, 1970 was revived and as such the tax is payable at 1 per cent. This contention was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee challenged this order before the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the matter was subsequently transferred to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable in view of the judgment of the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213 and of the Karnataka High Court in Jyothi Home Industries v. State of Karnataka [1987] 64 STC 208. It is submitted that in view of these decisions, the decisions given in the cases of Mahesh Industries (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 decided on March 19, 1986) and Sanganer Dal Flour Mills (S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 57 of 1987 decided on July 10, 1987) require reconsideration. 5.. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 (Mahesh Industries v. Union of India) it was held by this Court that the notification which has been superseded is not revived in view of the provisions of section 7 of the General C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns by other notifications, the result was to wipe out any liability accrued under previous notifications. 8.. The matter with regard to the application of tax at the relevant point of time is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in International Cotton Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1975] 35 STC 1 and following the same it is held that the subsequent amendment in the Schedule of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act shall be applicable to Central Sales Tax Act and the law as prevailing at the relevant time in the State will have to be seen for the purpose of section 8(2A) of Central Sales Tax Act. 9.. In Jyoti Home Industries v. State of Karnataka [1987] 64 STC 208 (Kar), it was held that each of the three notifications, one dated March 31, 1983 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment exercises its power to rescind any notification then the only interpretation which could be taken in the taxing statute will be that the notification which has been rescinded will no longer thereafter be effective. It cannot be interpreted to revive the superseded notification. 11.. The view which has been taken by this Court does not require consideration and there being no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition has no force and the petitioner is liable to make payment of tax on the inter-State sale of pulses at the rate of 2 per cent and also the interest under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act in accordance with the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
