UTKAL JEWELLERY MART Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following question under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for opinion of the court :

(2.) THE assessee is a registered dealer dealing in gold and silver ornaments. The period of assessment is 1973-74. The quantum of turnover is not in dispute but the rate at which the turnover is exigible to sales tax is under challenge. Though at one stage, the turnover of gold and silver ornaments was being challenged as not exigible to tax under serial No. 27 of the schedule of taxable goods, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bavchand and Co. v. State of Orissa [1976] 38 STC 42 that has no more been agitated. The only other question over which dispute has been raised by the assessee and sustained up to this stage is whether gold ornaments studded with imitation stones/artificial precious stones were jewellery so as to be exigible to tax at the rate prescribed under serial No. 22 of the schedule of luxury goods. The relevant serial read thus :

(3.) WE accept the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee and hold that under serial No. 22 imitation stone is not covered and gold ornaments when studded with imitation stone would not become jewellery within the meaning of the serial. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the negative, namely : The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was not correct in holding that the sales turnover of gold ornaments studded with imitation stones were jewellery exigible to tax at the rate prescribed in serial No. 22 of the schedule of luxury goods. As already pointed out, so far as artificial precious stones are concerned, the assessee's counsel conceded that gold ornaments studded with artificial precious stones would be jewellery. There would be no order for costs. Reference answered in the negative.