COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. CHHOTELAL BHAROSILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. The question which has been posed before us for answer is :whether pind-khajur is dry fruit or preserved fruit ?

(2.) THE material facts are that the assessee, Messrs Chhotelal Bharosilal of Gwalior, is a dealer in dry fruits and kirana. On the turnover of sales of pind-khajur during the period from 1st April, 1960, to 31st March, 1961, the firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Gwalior, at the rate of 7 per cent, on the basis that pind-khajur was "dry fruit" and fell under entry No. 24 of Part II of Schedule II to the Act. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gwalior, upheld the view of the Sales Tax Officer. Both these taxing authorities rejected the contention of the assessee that pind-khajur was a fresh fruit falling under entry No. 18 of Schedule I to the Act and was exempted from tax.

(3.) IN second appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal held that pind-khajur was neither a fresh fruit nor a dry fruit but was a preserved fruit and consequently it was taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. under the residuary entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II.