POORAN CHAND Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two references made to us under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi and they raise a lather interesting question as to the interpretation of clauses la) and (b) of Subsection (5) o.f Section 4 of the Act.

(2.) The facts are brief and simple. The firm Puran Chand Gain Prakash deals in Zari,Got etc-. Which is partly manufactlred by it and certain other alled goods which it resells after buying them from other dealers. The turn-over of the firm, therefore, coasists of saleproceeds of goods manufactured by it as well as of the goods purchased and re-sold by it. The firms contention in the revision petitions filed betore the Chief Commissioner of Delhi against its assessment for the years 1955 56 and 1956-57 was that as it was a manufacturer of goods for sale it was not liable to pay any tax until its turn over from the sale proceeds of goods manufactured by it exceeded Rs. 10,000/ . On the other hand, the view taken by the Chief Commissioner who upheld the orders made by the assessing authorities below was that for the purpose of computing the gross turn over, in the case of dealers who partly manufacture or import good and partly re-sell goods purchased by them from others, the figures of sales under both these beads have to be added together in order to arrive at the taxable quantum under the Act. The dealer relied upon a decision of Nagpur High Court in Ayoahyaprasad Suklal v. The Commissioner, and on another judgment of Madbya Pradesh High Court in Mahbir Prasad v. B. S. Gupta Sales Tax Officer, Indore, for the view contrary to that taken by the Chief Commissioner. But since there was no decision of the Punjab High Court which had then jurisdiction over Delhi and the question was one of importance the following question was referred to the High Court by the Chief Commissioner's order dated the 1st June; 1959 :

(3.) Much of the importance of the question would, however appear to have since been lost as the precise question arising in these two references has meanwhile been answered by a Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi consisting of A.N. Grover J, (as his Lordship then was) and S K. Kapur J. in Shre Kexal Kishan 0m Parkash v. The State where the two decisions of the High Courts of Nagpur and Madbya Pradesh have been approved by their Lordships.