S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 218 of 2010. Case: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Vs Mangal Murti Cattle Feed. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 218 of 2010 |
| Judges | Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Sections 8, 10(1), 85 and 86; Value Added Tax Act - Section 100 |
| Citation | RLW 2011 (1) Raj 606 |
| Judgement Date | November 12, 2010 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
-
Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, read with Section 100 of the VAT Act, challenging the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 22.3.2010, communicated to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur on 23.4.2010, in Appeal No. 471/2007/Pali, whereby, learned Tax Board upheld the judgment dated 1.11.2006 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur.
-
The facts which are inter alia pleaded in the case are that assessment order dated 8.3.2006 was passed by the assessing authority, in which, finding was given that the Respondent dealer has imported raw material cotton seed worth Rs. 3,88,780/- from Guntoor (Andhra Pradesh) on the strength of F forms and it was held that the same was used by the Assessee in the manufacture of cattle feed and according to provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act of 1994, the Respondent Assessee is liable to pay tax @ 4% as provided under notification dated 25.9.1980.
-
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 8.3.2006, Respondent dealer preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur under Section 8 of the Act of 1994. Learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal of the assess and set aside assessment order dated 8.3.2006 vide judgment dated 1.11.2006, against which, the revenue further went in appeal before the learned Tax Board, Ajmer under Section 85 of the Act of 1994. Learned Tax Board, Ajmer, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1.11.2006 vide judgment impugned dated 22.3.2010, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
-
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that learned Tax Board as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate the correct position of law and did not examine the matter in its entirety and objectivity. The rate of tax payable on the sale to or purchase by the registered dealer of any raw material for the manufacture in the State of goods for sale by him...
To continue reading
Request your trial