Skip to content


Varma Industrials Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore District, Iii Circle, Bangalore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 5297 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1981]47STC43(Kar)
ActsKarnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 5(4) ; Central Sales Tax Act; Central Excises Act; Financial Act, 1969
AppellantVarma Industrials Limited
RespondentThe Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore District, Iii Circle, Bangalore
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasan
Respondent AdvocateN.Y. Hanumanthappa, IV Additional High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....the provisions of panchayat raj act. petitioner cannot directly make representations to the revenue authorities in the light of the resolution passed by the gram panchayath. writ petition is mis-conceived. - rexine cloth is one of the declared good coming within the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the central excises and salt act as amended by the financial act, 1969, and the fourth schedule to the karnataka sales tax act does not include cotton fabrics and, as such, the turnover in relation to these goods is not liable to tax under both the acts......sales tax act and the central sales tax act, the alleged turnover in regard to the p.v.c. rexine cloth is challenged as being without jurisdiction. 3. the proposition notice is for the assessment for the year ending 31st march, 1970. the contention of the petitioner is that the p.v.c. rexine cloth is one of the declared good coming within the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the central excises and salt act as amended by the financial act, 1969, and the fourth schedule to the karnataka sales tax act does not include cotton fabrics and, as such, the turnover in relation to these goods is not liable to tax under both the acts. 4. reliance is placed upon a decision of this court in anant n. gholba v. state of mysore (s.t.r.p. nos. 39 and 40 of 1973 decided on 18th.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Srinivasa Iyengar, J.

1. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'P.V.C. rexine cloth', and deals in certain other commodities also.

2. In this writ petition, the proposition notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore District, III Circle, proposing to include for purpose of assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, the alleged turnover in regard to the P.V.C. rexine cloth is challenged as being without jurisdiction.

3. The proposition notice is for the assessment for the year ending 31st March, 1970. The contention of the petitioner is that the P.V.C. rexine cloth is one of the declared good coming within the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act as amended by the Financial Act, 1969, and the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act does not include cotton fabrics and, as such, the turnover in relation to these goods is not liable to tax under both the Acts.

4. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Anant N. Gholba v. State of Mysore (S.T.R.P. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1973 decided on 18th October, 1973 (Karnataka High Court).). In those cases, the question arose for the year prior to the amendment of the Central Excises and Salt Act by the Finance Act, 1969. The commodity in regard to which the question arose was the P.V.C. rexine cloth. This Court held that consequent to the amendment by the Finance Act, 1969, cotton fabrics would include P.V.C. rexine cloth which is manufactured with cloth as base and giving coating or coatings of polyvinyl chloride. The matter was remanded to the authorities for fresh disposal as it had been contended that even prior to the amendment P.V.C. rexine cloth had been considered to be cotton fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act and this aspect of the matter had not been investigated by the assessing authority. In that decision this Court also held that cotton fabrics were declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act and they were not liable to tax under section 5(4) of the Act read with the Fourth Schedule as under that provision, tax was levied only on the declared goods described in the said schedule and cotton fabrics were not goods described in the Fourth Schedule.

5. After the amendment by the Finance Act, 1969, the definition of 'cotton fabrics' in item 19 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act was as follows :-

''Cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or party from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bedspreads, counterpanes, table-cloths, embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregnated or coated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials but does not include any such fabric if it contains -

(i) 40 per cent or more by weight of wool;

(ii) 40 per cent or more by weight of silk; or

(iii) 60 per cent or more by weight of rayon or artificial silk.'

Thus, it is clear that the P.V.C. rexine comes within the ambit of this definition and therefore would be excluded from taxation by virtue of section 5(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with the Fourth Schedule thereto. The attempt of the Commercial Tax Officer to bring the turnover in this behalf is therefore held to be without jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, the proposition notice is quashed to the extent it proposes to include the turnover from the P.V.C. rexine cloth.

7. Ordered accordingly.


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