Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Simla Ice Cream Factory - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number M.C.C. No. 146 of 1980
Judge
Reported in[1984]55STC152(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentSimla Ice Cream Factory
Advocates: S. Kulshreshtha, Deputy Government Adv.
Cases ReferredMadhya Pradesh v. Gyanmal Kesharichand
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.....for its opinion :whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, ice-cream, ice-candy is cooked food and is covered by item 8 of part i of schedule ii appended to the m. p. general sales tax act, 1958.3. shri kulshreshtha, the learned deputy government advocate, brought to our notice the decision of full bench of this court in commissioner of sales tax, madhya pradesh v. gyanmal kesharichand [1984] 55 stc 140; [1982] 15 vkn 132. after an elaborate and a very learned discussion on all the aspects of the matter, the full bench held that 'ice-cream' and 'ice-candy' are not 'cooked food' and are not covered by item 8 of part i of schedule ii to the act. we are bound to follow the aforesaid decision in the absence of any decision of a larger bench or of the supreme court on the.....
Judgment:

G.G. Sohani, J.

1. The order in this case shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case No. 153 of 1980, as a common question of law arises in both these cases.

2. By these references under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :

Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, ice-cream, ice-candy is cooked food and is covered by item 8 of Part I of Schedule II appended to the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.

3. Shri Kulshreshtha, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, brought to our notice the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Gyanmal Kesharichand [1984] 55 STC 140; [1982] 15 VKN 132. After an elaborate and a very learned discussion on all the aspects of the matter, the Full Bench held that 'ice-cream' and 'ice-candy' are not 'cooked food' and are not covered by item 8 of Part I of Schedule II to the Act. We are bound to follow the aforesaid decision in the absence of any decision of a larger Bench or of the Supreme Court on the point.

4. Our answer to the question referred to this Court, therefore, is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, ice-cream and ice-candy are not cooked food and are not covered by item 8 of Part I of Schedule II appended to the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.

5. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.


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