Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bharat Stores - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.C.C. No. 238 of 1980
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC100(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentBharat Stores
Appellant AdvocateS. Kulshrestha, Deputy Government Adv.
Respondent AdvocateMandoura, Adv.
Cases ReferredState of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.
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.....were preferred before the board of revenue and the board allowed the appeals holding that the pipes in question did not fall within the items mentioned as sanitary goods and fittings and they could not be assessed as per entry 56 of part ii of schedule ii to the act. the board also held that the case could not be reopened under section 19(1) of the act on the facts and circumstances of the case as the successor of the officer, who had made the original assessment, was not competent to revise that assessment while acting under section 19(1) of the act. at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax, the aforesaid questions have been referred to us for our decision5. question no. (1) is covered by the various decisions of this court : commissioner of sales tax, m.p. v. m.p. asbestos.....
Judgment:

K.N. Shukla, J.

1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, for our opinion on the following questions of law :

(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, G.I. pipes, hose pipes and rubber pipes are taxable ?

(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that reopening under Section 19(1) was not warranted ?

2. Brief facts, as stated by the Board of Revenue, are as follows : The assessee deals in hardware goods, including G.I. pipes, hose and rubber pipes. For the accounting years 1965-66 and 1966-67 pipes and pipe fittings were assessed to tax at 7 per cent under entry 1, Part VI, of Schedule II, appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority had noted that these pipes did not fall under the category of sanitary pipes and pipe fittings.

3. The case was reopened by the assessing authority under Section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that the sale had been under-assessed or had escaped assessment or had been assessed at a lower rate. After reopening the case the assessing authority passed the order holding that the pipes and pipe fittings in question were liable to be taxed at higher rate, i. e., at 10 per cent or 11 per cent under entry 56 of Part II of Schedule II.

4. The assessee filed appeals against the reassessment orders before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the appeals. Second appeals against the orders were preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board allowed the appeals holding that the pipes in question did not fall within the items mentioned as sanitary goods and fittings and they could not be assessed as per entry 56 of Part II of Schedule II to the Act. The Board also held that the case could not be reopened under Section 19(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case as the successor of the officer, who had made the original assessment, was not competent to revise that assessment while acting under Section 19(1) of the Act. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the aforesaid questions have been referred to us for our decision

5. Question No. (1) is covered by the various decisions of this Court : Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. M.P. Asbestos Cement and Pipe Co. 1981 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (14) 382 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Truel Tubes 1981 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (14) 38. This High Court in both the above decisions followed the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC). Following.these decisions we hold that the Board of Revenue rightly held that on the facts and circumstances of the case G.I. pipes, hose pipes and rubber pipes were not taxable under entry 56 of Part II of Schedule II to the Act.

6. In view of our decision on question No. (1), it is not necessary to answer question No. (2) and we, therefore, decline to answer the case. There will be no order as to costs.a


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