Skip to content


New Jothi Match Factory Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 436 of 1976 (Revision No. 75 of 1976)
Judge
Reported in[1977]40STC224(Orissa)
AppellantNew Jothi Match Factory
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Advocates:K.C. Rajappa and ;R. Janakiraman, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....(2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly contends that the registration certificate granted to the petitioner enabled it to import splints both for resale as well as for use in the manufacture and that so long as the registration certificate authorised the petitioner to import the goods for resale, it would not be found guilty of violation on the ground that it resold the splints themselves......challenged in this petition.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly contends that the registration certificate granted to the petitioner enabled it to import splints both for resale as well as for use in the manufacture and that so long as the registration certificate authorised the petitioner to import the goods for resale, it would not be found guilty of violation on the ground that it resold the splints themselves. we are of the opinion that this contention is misconceived. the contents of the registration certificate have to be read with the declaration contained in form c for the purpose of finding out whether there has been violation or not. in this case, as we have pointed out already, there is an admission that the splints were imported under form c for manufacturing.....
Judgment:

Ismail, J.

1. It was the admitted case that the petitioner imported the splints under concessional rate of tax with declaration in form C that they would be used for manufacturing matches in its own factory.Contrary to the declaration, equally admittedly the petitioner sold the splints to other persons. In view of this, the petitioner was found guilty of Section 10(d) read with Section 8(3)(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act and a penalty was imposed on it under Section 10A thereof. It is the correctness of this levy of penalty that is challenged in this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly contends that the registration certificate granted to the petitioner enabled it to import splints both for resale as well as for use in the manufacture and that so long as the registration certificate authorised the petitioner to import the goods for resale, it would not be found guilty of violation on the ground that it resold the splints themselves. We are of the opinion that this contention is misconceived. The contents of the registration certificate have to be read with the declaration contained in form C for the purpose of finding out whether there has been violation or not. In this case, as we have pointed out already, there is an admission that the splints were imported under form C for manufacturing matches in its own factory, but they were actually resold. Consequently, this will constitute a violation of Section 8(3)(b) read with the undertaking or declaration in C form licence. The result is that Section 10(d) and Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act are attracted and the levy of penalty was therefore proper. Hence the petition is dismissed.


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