9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier on cast iron spun pipes. The turnover for the years are Rs. 5,79,459 and Rs. 52,45,433 respectively. In reply to the notice, the petitioners contended that the end-products are cast iron pipes and they are nothing but cast iron castings in the form of pipe by spinning process. Therefore, they claimed that they are declared goods under item 4(1) of the Second Schedule. They also relied on a clarification by Government of India in Lr. P. 24/10/805 dated January 30, 1984 to the effect that cast iron castings continue to be cast iron. They also objected to the revision under section 16(1) on the ground that the said provision could not cover such a revision. 2.. The assessing authority rejected objections and revised the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication of the Government of India and wherein the products were iron pipes, man-whole covers, etc., adequately answers two of the arguments of learned counsel. Says the Supreme Court: "In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether the word 'including' in section 14(iv)(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act and item 2(i) of the Third Schedule to the A.P. Act has the effect of making the said sub-clause exhaustive or otherwise. Accordingly, we hold that the cast iron castings manufactured by the appellants do not fall within the expression 'cast iron' in entry 2(i) of the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act or within section 14(iv)(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act." 5.. They did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, reassess the tax due after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such reassessment." 8.. But reliance is placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. Devendran Company [1996] 103 STC 95 (SC). A perusal of the said judgment shows that no "ratio" was laid down. A decision is authority for a point of law if a lis on the issue is discussed and a ratio laid down. One can see with advantage the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1782 at para 19 to understand how a ratio has to be culled out. We have also perused the judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
