Skip to content


Chandra Prakash Singhal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Sales Tax Revision No. 236 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1985]58STC86(All)
AppellantChandra Prakash Singhal
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate Bharatji Agrawal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - 2 of the notification dated 1st december, 1973, clearly shows that the assessee, a dealer in tin scraps, is covered by the entry made at serial no......at serial no. 2 of the notification dated 1st december, 1973. it is, therefore, urged that the assessee is liable to pay tax at 1 per cent only. in the order of the tribunal, the aforementioned notification dated 1st december, 1973, has been referred to. what the tribunal says is that the commodity in which the assessee deals in, is a declared commodity within the meaning of clause (xii) of sub-section (4) of section 14, and therefore, the assessee would be liable to pay tax under that section. the approach is wholly erroneous. section 14 of the central sales tax act simply describes the declared commodities and it does not lay down any rate of tax. it is only section 15 of the central sales tax act, which adverts to the declared commodities under section 14 and then says that the.....
Judgment:

Om Prakash, J.

1. This is a revision by the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76, against the Tribunal's order dated 17th February, 1983.

2. This point that arises for consideration is whether the business of the assessee is covered by serial No. 2 of Notification No. ST-II-6628/X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973, which runs as follows :

Copper, tin, zinc, nickel or alloy or scraps containing any of these metals only, including sheets and circles used in the manufacture of brass-wares.

3. The contention of the assessee is that it deals in tin scrap, and therefore, the case of the assessee is fully covered by the entry at serial No. 2 of the notification dated 1st December, 1973. It is, therefore, urged that the assessee is liable to pay tax at 1 per cent only. In the order of the Tribunal, the aforementioned notification dated 1st December, 1973, has been referred to. What the Tribunal says is that the commodity in which the assessee deals in, is a declared commodity within the meaning of Clause (xii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 14, and therefore, the assessee would be liable to pay tax under that section. The approach is wholly erroneous. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act simply describes the declared commodities and it does not lay down any rate of tax. It is only Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which adverts to the declared commodities under Section 14 and then says that the tax payable in respect of any sale or purchase of declared goods, shall not exceed 4 per cent. So Section 15 simply lays down the ceiling of 4 per cent of the tax to be levied on the declared commodities. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the assessee is liable to be taxed under Section 14, is incorrect. The bare reading of serial No. 2 of the notification dated 1st December, 1973, clearly shows that the assessee, a dealer in tin scraps, is covered by the entry made at serial No. 2, and therefore, is liable to -pay tax at the rate of 1 per cent only.

4. In the result, the revision is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.

5. The papers will now be sent to the Tribunal for passing order under Section 11(8).


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