Skip to content


State of Madras, by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras Vs. Ralli Bros. Ltd., Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revn. Case No. 12 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad251; (1954)IIMLJ589
ActsMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 12-A and 12-B(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115; Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 - Rules 5(1) and 18(2)
AppellantState of Madras, by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras
RespondentRalli Bros. Ltd., Madras
Appellant AdvocateAsst. Govt. Pleader
Respondent AdvocateC. Doraiswamy for King and Partridge
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....the last point is the manner in which the deduction is to be worked out under rule 18(2) of the turnover rules, read with rule 5 (1) (k). the language of rule 18(2) does not present any, difficulty. it says: 'every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under clause (k) of rule 5(1) equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by him into oil provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover.'the deduction he is entitled to is the value of the groundnut from which he produced the oil. the total turnover of the oil should be taken into consideration and from that the value of the groundnuts which he purchased, must be deducted. to take a simple example, if the turnover of the oil is rs. 100 and the value of the.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

1. There is no substance in this revision petition. The first point relates to the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal in the circumstances set out in para. 4 of the Judgment considered that it is a fit case, where they should exercise their discretion in excusing the delay in filing, the appeal. That discretion cannot be interfered with.

2. The second objection raised was, the Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. For the reasons given in para, 6 of the judgment, we agree with the Tribunal and the appeal was competent,

3. The third and the last point is the manner in which the deduction is to be worked out under Rule 18(2) of the Turnover Rules, read with Rule 5 (1) (k). The language of Rule 18(2) does not present any, difficulty. It says:

'Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under Clause (k) of Rule 5(1) equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by him into oil provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover.'

The deduction he is entitled to is the value of the groundnut from which he produced the oil. The total turnover of the oil should be taken into consideration and from that the value of the groundnuts which he purchased, must be deducted. To take a simple example, if the turnover of the oil is Rs. 100 and the value of the groundnut purchased, from which the oil was extracted was Rs. 75, this Rs. 75 should be deducted from Rs. 100 and on the balance of Rs. 25 alone the tax should be levied. This is a simple process, which is permitted under the rule, and it does not admit of any serious argument. In our opinion, the rule was correctly applied by the Tribunal to the facts of the case, and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed with costs, Rs. 250.


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