LAWS(MPH)-1985-10-9

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. DAWAR BROTHERS

Decided On October 14, 1985
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Appellant
V/S
DAWAR BROTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three references under Section 44 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, have been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in respect of the same dealer, to decide the common question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order relating to three different periods of assessment. The common question of law is as under :

(2.) THE dealer, M/s. Dawar Bros. , carried on business in motor vehicles, motor parts and accessories, petrol, diesel and lubricants, etc. For the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, the question arose about the rate at which sales tax was to be levied on the sale of batteries used in motor vehicles by this dealer. From 1st September, 1967, a specific entry was made for batteries, which was entry No. 1-A in Part II of Second Schedule to the Act. There was no controversy that from 1st September, 1967, sales tax on batteries was leviable under entry No. 1-A. For the periods 1965-66, 1966-67 and a part of the year 1967-68, up to 1st September, 1967, the dealer was assessed to sales tax on the sale of batteries by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority in accordance with entry No. 1 of Part II of Second Schedule, rejecting the dealer's contention that it was entry No. 30 in Part II of Second Schedule, providing for a lower rate of tax, which was applicable. The Tribunal has, however, taken a contrary view and held that even though batteries sold along with the motor vehicles by the dealer were liable to be taxed under entry No. 1, yet, the sale of such batteries separately could be taxed only under entry No. 30 in Part II of Second Schedule, instead of entry No. 1 therein.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the view taken by the Tribunal in favour of the dealer for all the three periods of assessment the Commissioner of Sales Tax sought a reference to this Court under Section 44 (1) of the Act, which has been made to answer the above-quoted common question of law arising in all the three references.