Skip to content


H. Anjanappa and Son Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.A. No. 5 of 1969
Judge
Reported in[1970]26STC139(Kar)
AppellantH. Anjanappa and Son
RespondentCommissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Katageri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.K. Shyamasundar, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....same sound system for several years, the old system was worn out. if the assessee has provided certain amenities to its customers by replacing the old system with a better sound system, it cannot be said that the assessee has increased its income. instead of repairing the old stereo system, the assessee has installed the dolby stereo system. this has not benefited the assessee in any way with regard to its total income since there is no change in the seating capacity of the theatre or increase in the tariff rate of the ticket. it is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure......they do not revert to the category of textiles, but they retain the character of wearing apparel liable to sales tax. therefore, in our opinion, the view taken by the commissioner of commercial taxes was right. 3. it was urged by sri b. v. katageri, learned counsel for the appellant that in the case of ready-made garments, it is the first seller that is liable to tax at a single point and in the instant case there is no evidence that the appellant is the first seller. this is not a matter which was urgent before the authorities below and there is no material before us to decide that question. it is open to the appellant to urge the same when the matter next arises and we do not think it necessary to remand the matter since the disputed tax amount is a paltry sum of rs. 37.06. 4. in the.....
Judgment:

Govinda Bhat, J.

1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1965-66. The dispute relates to the liability of the assessee to be assessed on the turnover of worn out and torn old clothing pieces collected by him through hawkers from the public. The Commercial Tax Officer held that sales of such old clothing were taxable and accordingly levied a tax of Rs. 37.06 for the year 1965-66. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner who held that the goods in dispute were rags and they were not liable to tax, being covered by entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule. Consequently, he set aside the assessment. Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 22-A of the Act. He was of the view that the cloth rages are different from worn out and torn clothings and that worn out and torn clothings do not come under entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule. Consequently, he revised the order of the Deputy Commissioner and held that the turnover in question was exigible to tax. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the above appeal.

2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the goods in question are worn out and torn old clothing pieces purchased by the appellant through hawkers from the public and then sold for the manufacture of paper. All varieties of textiles are exempted from sales tax with effect from 14th December, 1957. The question is, whether worn out and torn old clothings fall under the description of textiles. It is not disputed that notwithstanding the exemption of textiles from sales tax, ready-made garments such as wearing apparel are liable to tax and they do not fall under entry 8-A of the First Schedule. If old and worn out wearing apparel are purchased by the appellant they do not revert to the category of textiles, but they retain the character of wearing apparel liable to sales tax. Therefore, in our opinion, the view taken by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was right.

3. It was urged by Sri B. V. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellant that in the case of ready-made garments, it is the first seller that is liable to tax at a single point and in the instant case there is no evidence that the appellant is the first seller. This is not a matter which was urgent before the authorities below and there is no material before us to decide that question. It is open to the appellant to urge the same when the matter next arises and we do not think it necessary to remand the matter since the disputed tax amount is a paltry sum of Rs. 37.06.

4. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

5. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //