Skip to content


Shantilal Kalidas Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.J.C. No. 107 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1981]48STC560(Orissa)
AppellantShantilal Kalidas
RespondentState of Orissa
Appellant Advocate B.P. Chandgotia, K.N. Jena and ; M.L. Jhunjhunwalla, Advs.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel (Sales Tax)
Cases ReferredShantilal Kalidas v. State of Orissa
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........case, the additional sales tax tribunal is justified in rejecting the assessee's contention that glass bangles are unclassified goods and hence taxable at 5 per cent ?(2) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the additional sales tax tribunal is justified in treating glass bangles to come under the purview of entry no. 38 which relates to taxing on glasswares and china-clay goods and therefore the appropriate rate of tax would be 8 per cent ?2. at the hearing the assessee's counsel fairly concedes that the questions now raised were directly in issue in the case of shantilal kalidas v. state of orissa (1977) 43 c.l.t. 555, where after hearing the parties this court has come to hold that glass bangles are covered by entry no. 38 of the list of taxable goods. for the.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, J.

1. Two questions have been referred by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, under Section 21(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for opinion of the court, namely :

(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in rejecting the assessee's contention that glass bangles are unclassified goods and hence taxable at 5 per cent ?

(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in treating glass bangles to come under the purview of entry No. 38 which relates to taxing on glasswares and china-clay goods and therefore the appropriate rate of tax would be 8 per cent ?

2. At the hearing the assessee's counsel fairly concedes that the questions now raised were directly in issue in the case of Shantilal Kalidas v. State of Orissa (1977) 43 C.L.T. 555, where after hearing the parties this Court has come to hold that glass bangles are covered by entry No. 38 of the list of taxable goods. For the reasons given in the said decision with which we agree, we hold in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and answer the first question by saying that the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was right in holding that glass bangles were not unclassified goods and were covered by entry No. 38. The second question need not be answered.

There will be no order for costs.

N.K. Das, J.

3. I agree.


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