9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (c) of Section 8(3). - Learned AGP was not in a position to differentiate the aforesaid proposition of law, as may warrant us to take a different view. - SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 1 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR NAYAN A SHETH, ADVOCATE, MR TANVISH U BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, the Tribunal ) has referred the following question of law for our consideration: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sales of printed laminated paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence Application Nos.07/1997 08/1997 before the Tribunal. However, by order dated 10.12.1998, the Tribunal rejected both the Reference Applications filed by the State. 5. Against the said order of the Tribunal, the State preferred Sales Tax Application Nos.01/1999 and 02/1999 before this Court. Both the applications came to be allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 05.11.2011 and the Tribunal was directed to refer the question of law to this Court. Hence, this reference. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue referred to this Court is settled by the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Lt. Governor, Delhi and others v. Messrs. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., (1973) 3 SCC 487 . In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials intended for being used for packing of goods for sale; it only facilitates the actual user for packing. Packing materials are necessary not only for solid articles but also for those in liquid and semiliquid form. As the Tinsheets and Tinplates were intended to be used for packing of vegetable products, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of clause (c) of Section 8(3). 7. Learned AGP was not in a position to differentiate the aforesaid proposition of law, as may warrant us to take a different view. 8. We concur with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision and accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
