TRIBUWANDAS GULABCHAND NAGPUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference at the instance of the assessee made by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 23(1) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act.

(2.) The question that is referred is as follows :- "Whether the view of the Tribunal that glass sheets fall under entry No. 15 of Schedule I, Part I,to the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, is justified in law."

(3.) The assessee does the business of dealing in glass sheets, photo-frames and pictures. The Sales Tax Officer assessed his turnover for glass sheets at the rate of 7 per cent. holding that this item was covered under "glass-wares" falling under item No. 15 in the First Schedule of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The chargeable accounting period for which the turnover was determined is from 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. The assessment order was passed on 28th October, 1959. Against this order the assessee preferred a first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Eastern Division, Range I. His contention before the first appellate authority was that glass sheets were not subject to sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent. of the glass-ware. The first appellate authority rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal on 30th April, 1960. Against this order the assessee preferred a second appeal which was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) Eastern Division, Ranges I and II. That authority also did not accept the contention of the petitioner. It is only the decision of the second appellate authority which is included in the paper book before us. In rejecting the contention of the assessee the appellate authority referred to a decision of the Nagpur High Court which is reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal Ramkishan Nathani ([1955] 6 S.T.C. 136). It will be necessary to refer to that decision in considering the contentions raised before us. In view of that decision of the Nagpur High Court, the second appellate authority felt itself bound by the decision and rejected the appeal of the assessee.