CHUNNILAL MOTILAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Board of Revenue, on a direction given by this court dated 15th January, 1969, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 233 of 1967, has referred the following two questions for our opinion : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material to enhance the gross turnover from Rs. 5,02,456 to Rs. 5,18,755 and whether the enhancement was legal ? and (2) Whether the sales of batasa, sugar -candy and chironjidana can be regarded as sales of sugar within the meaning of entry No. 41 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?

(2.) THIS reference had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C. J., and S.P. Bhargava, J., which by order dated 16th July, 1971, directed that the entire reference be placed before a Full Bench to consider whether the question decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Channulal Motilal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore 1965 M.P.L.J. 354, had been correctly decided. The said Division Bench doubted the correctness of that decision in view of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 S.T.C. 24 (S.C), and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Paro and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1970] 25 S.T.C. 34. Hence this reference has come up before a Full Bench.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner unsuccessfully moved the Board of Revenue for making a reference to this court under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this court for requiring the Board of Revenue to make a reference to this court and a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 233 of 1967 dated 15th January, 1969, directed the Board of Revenue to refer the two questions for the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue by a statement of case dated 13th May, 1969, has referred the two questions for the opinion of this Court. When this reference was heard by a Division Bench, it was directed to be heard by a Full Bench by order dated 16th July, 1971.