ANIL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the judgment dated 20th March, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Meerut, relating to assessment year 1980-81.

(2.) The assessee manufactures and sells chaff-cutter blades, iron wheel rims, etc. Books of account of the assessee were rejected by all the three authorities and best judgment assessment was passed. I have heard counsel for the parties. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, has contended that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the assessee. Since a positive finding has been recorded by the authorities that the assessee has not maintained manufacturing account as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), I find myself unable to accept the contention raised by Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee. So far as the rejection of the books of account of the assessee is concerned the same is liable to be maintained. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal itself that double plated iron rims are used for animal driven vehicles as well as the tractor trailers the turnover of the same should have been exempted under Section 4 of the Act. Counsel for the assessee drew my attention to the notification dated 14th November, 1980, published in the Gazette on 15th November, 1980 and entry No. 30 whereof reads as under : Animal driven vehicle including carts having pneumatic tyre wheels and accessories and attachment and spare parts thereof.

(3.) A perusal of the said entry indicates that wheels and accessories which are parts of animal driven vehicles, are exempt under Section 4 of the Act vide notification dated 14th November, 1980. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Tribunal and heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax. In view of the wordings of entry No. 30 I am of the opinion that the double plated rims manufactured by the assessee should have been exempted under Section 4 of the Act.