9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner ) in Revision No. 20/11/70/11. Shortly stated, the petitioner in its return submitted before the Commercial Tax Officer (for short, the CTO ) declared salt cake as a type of salt and claimed exemption from tax on the basis of entry No. 35 of the Schedule I of VAT Act providing salt to be under tax-free goods. The petitioner's claim for treating salt cake as type of salt was rejected by the CTO vide order dated June 24, 2011 (annexure P1). After the said order being passed by the CTO the petitioner submitted an application under section 70 of the VAT Act before the Commissioner raising a question for determination in respect of rate of tax on salt cake . The said application has been decided by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1, 2009. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand supported the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and has argued that the learned Commissioner has rightly held that, having regard to the use of salt cake , its contents and how it is understood in common parlance, salt cake cannot be said to be a type of salt and in the circumstances has committed no error in treating it to be in the residuary entry. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the relevant entries under the VAT Act. Section 70 of the VAT Act provides for determination of disputed questions, it empowers the Commissioner either on his own motion on any question in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be covered under the various other entries more particularly entry Nos. 28, 36 and 175. Instead of making such efforts the Commissioner on recording the finding that it is not covered under the entry salt has straightaway ordered that the salt cake is liable to be taxed at 13 per cent under residuary entry. In the circumstances in our considered view the order passed by the learned Commissioner is not in consonance with the requirement of section 70 of the VAT Act and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2008] 14 VST 259 (SC); [2008] 13 STJ 127 (SC). Having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner deserves t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
