Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ajanta Tiles - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Revision No. 289 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1980]45STC454(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentAjanta Tiles
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Agarwal, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 3. after hearing the parties' counsel, i find that the view taken by the appellate assistant commissioner (judicial) as well as by the additional revising authority is substantially correct in this behalf. (2) a limestone or marble rich in magnesium carbonate. sales tax act a remedy is clearly provided for making an application to that effect before the authority concerned, if permissible......the additional revising authority have been right in holding that dolomite is a mineral and on its sales, sales tax is chargeable at 3 per cent and not at 7 per cent. the grievance of the commissioner, sales tax, the applicant in this behalf, is not correct.6. there is one more ground which has been taken in this revision application and it is that the additional revising authority did not record any finding on grounds nos. 3 and 5 mentioned in the grounds of revision. i do not think that that can constitute any grounds in the present application because under section 22 of the u.p. sales tax act a remedy is clearly provided for making an application to that effect before the authority concerned, if permissible.7. in the result, the application in revision is dismissed with costs to the.....
Judgment:

R.R. Rastogi, J.

1. The respondent-assessee, Sarvashri Ajanta Tiles, Naini, Allahabad, carries on business in tiles, cement, dolomite, etc. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer charged sales tax at 7 per cent on the sales of dolomite. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, took a contrary view and held that dolomite is a mineral and hence its sales are chargeable to tax at 3 per cent. There was a revision against that finding and the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Allahabad Range, has confirmed this view.

2. According to the learned standing counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as also by the Additional Revising Authority that dolomite is marble dust and is considered as a mineral is not correct. Further, according To the learned standing counsel, no proper reason has been given for holding that dolomite is a mineral.

3. After hearing the parties' counsel, I find that the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as well as by the Additional Revising Authority is substantially correct in this behalf. Dolomite has been defined as under in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume I, at page 670:

(1) a mineral consisting of a calcium magnesium carbonate found in rhombohedral crystals and in extensive beds as a compact limestone that is often crystalline granular and either white or clouded -- called also Utter spar;

(2) a limestone or marble rich in magnesium carbonate.

4. Similarly, in Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, page 393, dolomite has been described to mean:

(1) a mineral, calcium,magnesium carbonate;

(2) a rock consisting essentially or particularly of this mineral.

5. The chemical compound of this substance is also given as Ca. Mg. (Co3) (2). It would appear therefore that dolomite, according to its dictionary meaning, is essentially a mineral and that is the meaning which is to be taken when no specific definition has been provided in the Act concerned. That being the position, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Additional Revising Authority have been right in holding that dolomite is a mineral and on its sales, sales tax is chargeable at 3 per cent and not at 7 per cent. The grievance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the applicant in this behalf, is not correct.

6. There is one more ground which has been taken in this revision application and it is that the Additional Revising Authority did not record any finding on grounds Nos. 3 and 5 mentioned in the grounds of revision. I do not think that that can constitute any grounds in the present application because under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act a remedy is clearly provided for making an application to that effect before the authority concerned, if permissible.

7. In the result, the application in revision is dismissed with costs to the assessee, which are assessed at Rs. 100.


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