9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act were charged to sales tax for the sale of jhama so also for the bricks which they had sold after July 1, 1976. The assessing authority, namely, the Superintendent of Taxes, took the view that jhama is akin to "bricks" which was a taxable commodity both of which are of the same nature, there being only a change in the form so far as jhama is concerned. The Superintendent of Taxes, therefore, held that jhama is basically a brick and levied tax on the sale of jhama also. The assessing authority also levied tax on the bricks supplied after July 1, 1976 though the agreement to that effect was reached prior to that date. Feeling aggrieved, appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes who demanded payment of 50 per cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de enough to cover the aforesaid forms of rice also. 4.. As against these decisions, Shri Das appearing for the assessees referred to State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC), wherein it was held that as soon as a separate commercial commodity emerges or comes into existence, it becomes a separate taxable goods or entity for the purpose of sales tax. 5.. It may be pointed out here that in the Act as originally enacted jhama was not specifically mentioned as a taxable commodity which, however, was so done by the first amendment to the Act which came into force with effect from September 13, 1978. So there is no doubt that after September 13, 1978 jhama has to be taken as a taxable commodity. Question is what would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the position, we have not thought it fit to examine the contention advanced by learned counsel of both the sides by applying our own mind to find out whether jhama can be said to have been included within the word "bricks" as it found place in the Act as first enacted. It may however be stated that both the sides produced two articles, different in size and shape, in the court to show what a jhama is like. We would remain content by saying that as the decision of the Tribunal was accepted by the department, any departure from the same after a decade would not be equitable and so we state that jhama sold by the petitioners could not have been included in the assessment made by the Superintendent of Taxes for the period in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
