INDO INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the dealer who carries on business of manufacture and sale of glass syringes. For the year 1969-70, the taxable turnover disclosed by the dealer was accepted and as claimed by the dealer, was taxed as unclassified goods under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. This was upheld by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, by order dated 7th December, 1978. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, assailed the order under Section 11(1) of the Act before this Court and urged that glass syringes were taxable as glassware at the rate of 7 per cent.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court had held in Sales Tax Reference No. 101 of 1972 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermometers reported in 1973 Law Diary 178), that glass syringes were liable to be taxed as glassware at the rate of 7 per cent. Following that judgment, this Court held, in the revision filed by the Commissioner in the dealer's case, that syringes were liable to be taxed as glasswares. The Additional Judge (Revisions) then passed an order dated 12th June, 1980, in conformity with the judgment of the High Court subjecting the turnover of the applicant to tax at the rate of 7 per cent.

(3.) The Supreme Court reversed the view of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermometers 1973 Law Diary 178 on 25th March, 1981, in Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1981 in the dealer's own case relating to the assessment year 1973-74 [reported as Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1981 UPTC 481 (SC) and held that glass syringes were taxable up to 30th November, 1973, at the rate of 4 per cent as "hospital equipment" under entry 44 of the First Schedule to the Act. The dealer then moved an application under Section 22 of the Act for rectification of the order dated 12th June, 1980, before the Sales Tax Tribunal which had, in the meantime, replaced the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, seeking reduction of the tax liability by recalculating it at the rate of 4 per cent, instead of 7 per cent, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. This application was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the dealer should have approached this Court for the rectification sought because the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions) passed earlier had merged in that passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated 12th June, 1980, of the Additional Judge (Revisions) was merely in implementation of the order passed by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 11(1) of the Act. It rejected the application of the dealer as incompetent and not maintainable. The dealer has now approached this Court with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to consider its application for rectification of the order dated 12 th June, 1980, on merits because the view of the Tribunal that the application was incompetent was erroneous in law.