NIRMAL ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Pursuant to an order dated 19th August, 1982 passed by the High Court, the Tribunal had heard the appeal afresh. The claim of the assessee was that since during the assessment year 1974-75, he manufactured "sariya jali" to be used in "rahat", the same is exempt from the tax as being an agricultural implement. The Sales Tax Tribunal has, in the impugned order, however, relied upon a statement dated 16th November, 1977 made by the assessee before the Sales Tax Officer in which he has stated that he had manufactured "jali" for tube well. Further in the quarterly returns for the first and second quarters, the assessee had returned sales of tube-well "jali". In view of these admissions, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim for exemption as put forthwith by the assessee was not tenable and that the assessee had sold "jali" used for tube-well and as such the assessee is liable to sales tax.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee, I find that there is no error of law involved in the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal.

(3.) The second submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the assessee had not sold any "sariya" whatsoever inasmuch as all the "sariya" that was purchased by the assessee, was used by him for the manufacture and sale of "jali". From a perusal of the assessment order, however, it is clear that the assessee had sold "sariya" worth Rs. 7,500 to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works and the same was also not accounted for in the books of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer had also estimated sales of "sariya" at Rs. 10,000. The very same figure has been affirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned order. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal is not in error in holding that the assessee had also sold "sariya". Learned counsel for the assessee had not been able to satisfy me as to how the said finding recorded by the authorities below is vitiated in law. Thus both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee fail.