ANIL KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the dealer revisionist challenges an order dated February 13, 1989 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench-1, Kanpur Camp, Jhansi whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeal No. 167 of 1985.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The revisionist deals in tendu leaves that are purchased from the Forest department and are then sold by him. While selling the tendu leaves to the dealer the Forest department charged sales tax on the sale price of tendu leaves on which sales tax is leviable at the point of sale by a manufacturer or importer. Admittedly, the tendu leaves in question were not imported from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and were purchased from the Forest department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the agreement with the Forest department the dealer collected tendu leaves and, therefore, the Sales Tax Department took the view that the dealer was a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(ee) of the Act and consequently when it sold the goods the turnover was liable to tax. This view was challenged by the dealer revisionist but without any success. The word "manufacture" and "manufacturer" have been defined in the Act as under ;