COMMISSIONER SALES TAX Vs. GIRDHARI LAL FOOTBALL MAKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 24th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut. The short question that arises in the present case is as to whether the opposite party dealer is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Admittedly, the opposite party manufactures only football and volleyball covers. It did not manufacture bladders used in football and volleyball.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned standing counsel is that for the purpose of being entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act the dealer must manufacture football or volleyball bladders as well as covers. If he does not do so, he is not entitled to the exemption claimed by him. Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the dealer, however, states that the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned standing counsel is not warranted by law in view of the provisions mentioned in Section 5(3) of the Act. His contention, therefore, is that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid provision.

(3.) The Sales Tax Tribunal has in the impugned order stated that the dealer received orders from three modes : (1) when the exporters tour foreign countries they received orders personally. In such pro forma invoices full details of the orders are specifically mentioned and it is mentioned in these orders that orders were placed for football and volleyball with bladders ; (2) orders received from foreign countries in writing. In these orders football and volleyball alone was mentioned and no mention about bladder is contained in these orders and (3) orders for the supply of football and volleyball with bladder was specifically mentioned while in others trade mark of the bladder was also mentioned.