HARI SAMANTA AND SONS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this case on a reference under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is as to whether sized timbers would be covered within the meaning of logs which the petitioner had purchased on submission of declarations. The assessing authorities under an erroneous impression held that by processing the logs and timbers and making them as "sized timbers" the assessee had converted the logs into a different commodity and therefore the declaration given by the petitioner in respect of the logs had been contravened. A demand was accordingly raised under section 5 (2) (A) (a) (ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act on the assessee-petitioner. Both the appellate authority and the Tribunal affirmed the demand and ultimately the petitioner having not succeeded, the matter has come up before us.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both parties, we do not feel it necessary to enter into a long discussion, as the matter has been clarified by the Supreme Court in [1985] 60 STC 213; AIR 1985 SC 1293 (State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited ). The said case of the Supreme Court was preferred against the decision of this Court. The Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision of this Court in the case reported in [1975] 35 STC 270 (Krupasindhu Sahu and Sons v. State of Orissa) and in para 91 while considering whether beams, rafters and planks should also be logs or timbers on a reference to the dictionary meaning of the products, observed that all these various resultant products from timber or log would also be covered within the ambit of expression "timber" or "log" put to a particular use. The view taken by this Court in [1975] 35 STC 270 (Krupasindhu Sahu and Sons v. State of Orissa) that big sized logs of wood ordinarily used in house construction as beams and pillars would be covered within the meaning of timber and log was approved but the view that the timber when converted into planks, rafters and other wood products would not come within the meaning of "log" or "timber", was rejected. It was categorically held that the planks and rafters would also be log or timber.

(3.) IN the result both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. We make no order order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.