Skip to content


Hindsons (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference Nos. 4 and 5 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1982]49STC136(P& H)
AppellantHindsons (P.) Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Punjab
Appellant Advocate R.N. Narula, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.L. Ahluwalia, Adv. for;Adv.-General
Excerpt:
overruled / reversed by: state of punjab vs. hindsons (p) ltd. () - sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable..........tax tribunal, punjab, has referred the following question of law to us for our opinion :whether a belt pulley attachment was an agricultural implement within the meaning of entry 34 of schedule b to the punjab general sales tax act, prior to the amendment made on 15th april, 1971 ?3. a tractor is generally used by the agriculturists for ploughing their fields. the ploughing operations can be carried on conveniently even when the belt pulley is not attached to a tractor. a belt pulley is attached to a tractor when the latter is required for running a threshing machine or for running a water-pump. admittedly for the assessment years undder consideration agricultura implements were not exigible to sales tax. a belt pulley, as a matter of fact, increases the utility of a tractor for.....
Judgment:

M.R. Sharma, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of General Sales Tax References Nos. 4 and 5 of 1978 and Civil Writ Petition No. 3095 of 1973.

2. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Sales Tax Case No. 7 of 1973, the Presiding Officer of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, has referred the following question of law to us for our opinion :

Whether a belt pulley attachment was an agricultural implement within the meaning of entry 34 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, prior to the amendment made on 15th April, 1971 ?

3. A tractor is generally used by the agriculturists for ploughing their fields. The ploughing operations can be carried on conveniently even when the belt pulley is not attached to a tractor. A belt pulley is attached to a tractor when the latter is required for running a threshing machine or for running a water-pump. Admittedly for the assessment years undder consideration agricultura implements were not exigible to sales tax. A belt pulley, as a matter of fact, increases the utility of a tractor for agricultural operations. We are accordingly of the view that a belt pulley falls within the meaning of an agricultural implement.

4. Mr. Ahluwalia appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General has submitted that for the relevant assessment years a tractor was exigible to tax and since some of the tractors are sold along with a belt pulley, it would create an anomalous position if tax is levied on the sale of a tractor to which a belt pulley is attached and is disallowed to be levied when a belt pulley alone is sold. We see no anomaly in this situation. When some implements are permanently attached or fastened to a tractor, they become part and parcel of it and it is open to the authorities to impose tax on the transaction of sale of the tractor. However, when a belt pulley is sold separately, since the sale is one of an agricultural implement, the authorities concerned are not permitted to levy sales tax on this transaction.

5. Mr. Ahluwalia then drew our attention to entry 34 appearing in Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), which goes to show that agricultural implements of a particular type alone are declared to be tax-free. From this entry, the learned counsel wants us to infer that since the legislature exempted only a class of implements, the other implements which do not fall in this class should be declared as taxable goods. We are not impressed with this argument either. Entry 34 to which Mr. Ahluwalia has made a reference was enacted in the present form on 15th April, 1971, and prior to that all agricultural implements were declared tax-free goods.

6. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i. e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Sales Tax Tribunal shall now dispose of the appeal in accordance with the opinion given by us. No costs.

C.W.P. No. 3095 of 1973.

7. Mr. Ahluwalia has raised a preliminary objection that since the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available under the Act, we should not grant it any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the Sales Tax Tribunal had earlier given a considered decision adverse to the petitioner, the remedies available under the statute could not be regarded as effective. Since we have come to the conclusion that a belt pulley constitutes an agricultural implement we are not inclined to accept this preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ahluwalia. This petition is accordingly allowed and the assessment order dated 23rd May, 1973, so far as it relates to belt pulley is hereby quashed.


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