SHANTILAL KALIDAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these cases have been taken up together as they involve an identical question, but relate to different assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.

(2.) ON an application being made under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the "act") by the assessee for a reference to this court, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has referred the following question for opinion of the court :

(3.) DURING the relevant assessment years the general rate of tax payable by a dealer under section 5 (1) of the Act was 5 per cent. This sub-section contains a number of provisos, but the first two provisos authorise the State Government to vary the general rate of tax by notification. The first proviso empowers the State Government from time to time by notification, subject to such conditions as they may impose, to fix a higher rate of tax not exceeding 10 per cent or any lower rate of tax payable under the Act on account of sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods as specified in such notification. Pursuant to the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, the State Government issued Notification No. 33927-F, dated 30th December, 1957. Under item No. 38 of this notification glassware and china-clay goods excepting bottles, lamps and lantern chimneys and earthenware pottery were made subject to a rate of tax at 7 per cent. Those goods which are not specified under any notification issued under the provisos to section 5 (1) of the Act are liable to general rate of tax under section 5 (1) as unclassified goods. The controversy, therefore, is as to whether glass bangle is a specified article covered under item 38 and thus liable to higher rate of tax at 7 per cent or is an unclassified article liable to general rate of tax of 5 per cent, as claimed by the assessee.