STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. JEEWANLAL 1929 LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed the above tax revision case challenging the order of the Tribunal giving relief to the respondent -assessee in respect of a turnover to the tune of Rs. 3, 51, 000 taxable at 5 per cent., representing the sales turnover of its machinery comprised in the Hindusthan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills giving them the benefit of rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

(2.) THE assessee was carrying on business, running their units in the name and style of.

(3.) MR . Lokapriya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the decision reported in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Behanan Thomas 1976 (5) CTR 489, 1977 (39) STC 325 (Mad.) and on the other hand the Tribunal should have followed the ratio of the case reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. 1973 AIR(SC) 1045, 1973 (31) STC 426, 1973 (3) SCC 511, 1973 (2) SCR 636, 1973 (2) CTR 20, 1973 TaxLR 1739, 1973 (2) CTR 20, 1973 (2) CTR(SC) 20, 1973 SCC(Tax) 269, 1973 (2) CTR 20 (SC) and District Controller of Stores v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer 1976 AIR(SC) 489, 1976 (37) STC 423, 1976 (1) SCC 660, 1976 UJ 163, 1983 (16) VKN 123, 1976 (5) CTR 206, 1976 TaxLR 1453, 1976 CTR(SC) 206, 1976 SCC(Tax) 98 (SC). Learned counsel further contended that the assessee continued the business even after the sale of the said unit, and that being the position, it cannot be said that the assessee has sold its business as a whole entitling it to the exclusion of the turnover contemplated under rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu Sales General Tax Rules.