9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice was issued to the driver of the said truck. In response to the notice, respondent No. 1 filed two replies. He also procured declaration form ST-18 on October 7, 1994 and produced the same at the concerned check-post on October 8, 1994. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu passed an order on October 17, 1994 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,27,843 upon respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer dated October 17, 1994, preferred an appeal before the (1)Oral. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was allowed on March 28, 1995 and the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, dated October 17, 1994 was set aside. Upset by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board. The Tax Board by its order dated November 3, 1996 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dated March 28, 1995 and restored the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. This time it was for the present respondent No. 1 to challenge the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board by prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and timber). This shall come into force on November 15, 1986. That the subject laundry machine is not operated manually and works on electric energy is the admitted position. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appliances or goods which run in the application of electric energy, is nothing but an electrical goods. The counsel placed reliance on the two judgments of the Madras High Court, first being William Jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1955] 6 STC 301; AIR 1955 Mad 656 and the other, the State of Tamil Nadu v. Best and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1984] 57 STC 174. Mr. Vikram Gogra, the counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the laundry machine was brought by respondent No. 1 for his personal use. According to him, the laundry machine is in fact a machine and merely because the said machine works on electric energy, it cannot be classified as electrical goods within the meaning of the notification dated October 31, 1986. In support of his submissions, the counsel for respondent No. 1 placed reliance upon few decisions, namely, (i) K.B. Dani v. State of Karnataka [1979] 44 STC 276 (Karn), (ii) Hind Rectifiers Ltd. v. State of Mah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstood by commercial men. In the case of BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 121 STC 450, the Supreme Court while drawing the distinction between electronic goods and electrical goods held that all electronic goods are not electrical goods. The fact that the electronic goods manufactured by the assessee cannot be used without the aid of electricity, is not only the criterion to determine whether those goods can be treated as electrical goods. As to whether the laundry machine is covered by the expression electrical goods in the notification dated October 31, 1986 what is important to be seen is: is it intrinsically that such machines are treated as electrical goods by the commercial men, though electrical energy is used for its operation. We do not think so. It is true that the various appliances specified in the circular are illustrative instances of electrical goods and they are not exhaustive but a laundry machine is not called electrical goods by the commercial men. In our considered view, therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that laundry machine is not electrical goods is a possible view. Now we shall assume that the view of the Tribunal that la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge of a vehicle, shall carry with him a bill of sale or despatch memo, and declaration as provided under the Act of 1954 and Rules framed thereunder. Sub-rule (2)(a) of rule 62A thereof reads thus: (2)(a) If any person other than a registered dealer within the State wants to purchase from outside the State any goods, as notified by the State Government, of the value of rupees one thousand or more for use, consumption or disposal within the State, he shall make and furnish or cause to be furnished declaration in form ST-18, the blank forms of which shall be obtained by him, on simple application alongwith payment of a fee of rupee one for each form, from the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned of this area where he ordinarily resides. The counterfoil of the declaration shall be retained by such person and its portions marked original and duplicate shall be produced before the officer-in-charge of the check-post, who shall retain such original portion and return such duplicate portion duly sealed in token of having verified it to the person producing it: [Provided that (where any person importing scooters, mopeds and motor cycles) does not avail of the procedure and/or permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
