JAYANT EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The applicant is a registered dealer and it also holds recognition under section 32 of the Act. It manufactures groundnut oil, solvent extraction groundnut oil and hydrogenated vegetable oil. For manufacturing hydrogenated vegetable oil (popularly known as vegetable ghee), it uses (a) solvent extracted oil obtained from the oil-cakes, (b) groundnut oil extracted from oil-seeds purchased by it, and (c) other edible oil including groundnut oil purchased from the market. There are certain purchases of oil made from unrecognised dealers. Some purchases are from registered dealers against declaration in form 19. The end-product, i. e. , vegetable ghee, is sold in the State and is also sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Certain part of the vegetable ghee is also consigned to places outside the State for sale there.

(2.) THE Sales Tax Officer while making the assessment for samvat year 2031 (from November 14, 1974 to November 13, 1975) found that, out of the total sales of Rs. 65,22,29,781 branch transfer sales outside the State were to the extent of Rs. 1,63,32,377. THE Sales Tax Officer also found that there was breach of declaration given in form 19 to some extent. In form 19, a dealer makes a declaration to the effect that the goods purchased by him shall be used as raw material, processing material or consumable stores in the manufacture of taxable goods and that the taxable goods shall not be sold outside the State. In view of such declaration at the time of purchase, the dealer is not required to pay the purchase tax. THE Sales Tax Officer found that there was breach of declaration made in form 19 to certain extent. THErefore he assessed the turnover of such breach to the extent of Rs. 1,02,533 and ordered to levy tax of Rs. 9,077. 15. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 100 as provided under section 45 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE dealer preferred revision application before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the revision application and confirmed the finding arrived at by the learned Assistant Commissioner except as regards the rectification of certain mistakes indicated in para 21 of its judgment.