9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dated June 26, 1995 is perverse or not when it held that sales of printed laminated paper rolls along with polythelene strip bobbins are card board boxes and cartons covered by entry No. 12(iv) of the Schedule-II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and is liable to tax accordingly and penalties is removed? " 3.. The Tribunal rejected the reference applications under subsection (1) of section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ("the Act" for brevity) on the ground that the Tribunal's finding that the goods in question fell within item No. 12(iv) cannot be said to be perverse. The Tribunal had merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Governor, Delhi v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001 in support of his opposition. The learned counsel particularly relied on the decision of the apex Court in Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. [1969] 73 ITR 634 and also on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.J. Devda [1977] 109 ITR 484 in support of his contention that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (2) cannot travel beyond the question which was proposed before the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 69 of the Act. The learned counsel has submitted that the provisions of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are in parimateria with the provisions of section 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin entry No. 12(iv) in Schedule II, Part-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 or whether the goods fall within the residuary entry. The question of law proposed in the draft amendment correctly brings out the said controversy and, therefore, in our view, the draft amendment moved by the State of Gujarat is required to be granted. Accordingly, the draft amendment in each of these applications is granted. 8.. On the merits of the reference applications, the learned Advocate-General submits that the Tribunal based its decision on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lt. Governor, Delhi v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 354, but the relevant entry in that case was "containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. 9.. On the other hand, Mr. R.D. Pathak has submitted that the decision of the Tribunal merely follows the decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Governor, Delhi v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 354, which was a similar case and that, therefore, the reference applications are required to be rejected. Mr. Pathak has further submitted that the tetrapack material was inserted as a separate entry in the year 1993-which amendment was in the nature of clarificatory amendment made by the Legislature and the said amendment fortified the assessee's contention that tetrapack materials were always to be treated as a part of the packing materials. 10.. Since in these applications we are not required to decide the main controversy and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
