Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sharma Brothers - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 477 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1987]66STC32(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentSharma Brothers
Advocates:Rajendra Tiwari, Adv.
Cases ReferredM.P. v. Chhogalal and Sons
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him.....of law, namely :(i) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of the stock of motor spirit which has suffered tax under the m.p. sales of motor spirit and lubricants taxation act, 1957 (act no. 4 of 1958) will be exempt from levy of tax under the m.p. general sales tax act, 1958, on and after 1st august, 1972 (i.e., the date from which the motor spirit act was repealed) taking support from the provisions of section 8(1) of the m.p. vitta adhiniyam, 1972 and section 10 of the m.p. general clauses act, 1957 ?(ii) whether provisions of section 54 of the m.p. general sales tax act, 1958, will be applicable for claiming exemption on sales of the stock of motor spirit on and after 1st august, 1972 ?2. the dealer carries on retail business in motor spirit and lubricants. it.....
Judgment:
ORDER

J.S. Verma, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax for decision of the following questions of law, namely :

(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of the stock of motor spirit which has suffered tax under the M.P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1957 (Act No. 4 of 1958) will be exempt from levy of tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, on and after 1st August, 1972 (i.e., the date from which the Motor Spirit Act was repealed) taking support from the provisions of Section 8(1) of the M.P. Vitta Adhiniyam, 1972 and Section 10 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 ?

(ii) Whether provisions of Section 54 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, will be applicable for claiming exemption on sales of the stock of motor spirit on and after 1st August, 1972 ?

2. The dealer carries on retail business in motor spirit and lubricants. It had purchased the same from wholesale dealers after payment of tax under the M.P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1957, on the goods, which was in its stock on 1st August, 1972. The dealer claimed that on this stock available with it on 1st August, 1972, tax had already been paid and, therefore, no further tax on the same could be imposed on sales of the same effected after 1st August, 1972 by this dealer. The assessing authority rejected this contention. The first appeal of the dealer was also dismissed. In second appeal, this contention of the dealer was accepted by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by this decision of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Sales Tax sought a reference to this Court for decision of the aforesaid questions of law and this is how these questions arise for decision by us.

3. There is no controversy that the view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the settled view of this Court. In (1983) 16 VKN 311 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Chhogalal and Sons) it was held that the tax-paid goods purchased under the Motor Spirit Taxation Act were not liable for payment of sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 after repeal of the Motor Spirit Taxation Act. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions. Following that decision, this reference has to be answered in favour of the dealer.

4. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Commissioner of Sales Tax and in favour of the dealer by saying that the Tribunal was justified in the view it has taken in the dealer's favour. No costs.


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