1999 (5) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw arising out of its order dated 19th July, 1996 for opinion of this Court: "(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold as thinner of paints, etc., sold by the appellant should be exigible to tax at 12 per cent under residuary entry No. 1, Part VI, Schedule II instead of being assessed at 16 per cent und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per cent. He failed and took further appeal to the Board of Revenue and succeeded there. The Board found that the assessee had sold mineral turpentine oil which was distinct from turpentine oil and was not covered by entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II and would fall in residuary entry as per the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... law under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and warrants no reference to this Court. 6.. This reference is accordingly answered in affirmative as Board was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold by the assessee as thinner was exigible to the tax at 12 per cent under the residuary entry 1 of Schedule II, Part VI of the Act. Same holds true about the levy of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X