COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. BAJRANG LIME WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 12th May, 1998 for the assessment years 1986-87, 87-88, 88-89 and 89-90.

(2.) At the instance of the revenue, in all the four revisions following question has been raised:

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") established a new unit for the manufacturing of lime. Lime stone was the raw material for the manufacturing of lime. Being the new unit, dealer claimed the exemption on the turn over of manufactured product, namely, lime. The unit was treated as new unit and an eligibility certificate No. 4775 dated 02.11.1991 was issued granting exemption from 27.07.1987 to 04.04.1992. In view of the eligibility certificate, assessing authority granted exemption on the turn over of lime from 27.07.1987 for the assessment year 1987-88 and for the assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90. However, tax was levied on the turn over of lime in the assessment year 1986-87 because for the said period, exemption was not granted under Section 4-A of the Act. In all the aforesaid assessment years, dealer had purchased lime stone from unregistered dealer. Assessing authority levied the tax on the purchases of lime stone made from unregistered dealer under Section 3-AAAA of the Act. Assessing authority was of the view that the lime stone was classified under notification No. ST-II-5785/X-10(1)/80-U.P. Act XV/48-Order-81, dated 07.09.1981 under the Entry "Ramraj, Geru, surkhi, sand, lime, bajri, marble-chips, moram, gitti, kankar, stone-ballast, stone and articles of stone except of glazed stone" liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer. The claim of the dealer was that the lime stone was mineral and, therefore, liable to tax at the point of manufacturer and importer under notification No. ST-II-5785/X-10(1)-80-U.P. Act XV/48-Order-81, dated 07.09.1981 "All kinds of mineral, ores, metals, scraps and alloy including sheets and circles" thus, it was not liable to tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act. The view of the assessing authority was upheld in appeals. Tribunal by the impugned order has accepted the plea of the dealer and held lime stone as mineral relying upon the dictionary meaning of lime stone and the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chela Ram Tulsidas reported in 1980 UPTC, 1238. In this case, multani mitti has been held as mineral. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ajanta Tiles reported in 45 STC, 454, Dolomite has been held as mineral. In the case of Mineral Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 46 STC, 208, Emery powder, Dolomite powder, Silica sand, Soap-stone powder and Alumina been held as mineral.