R K PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 made by the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa at the instance of the dealer and two interesting but somewhat complex questions have been referred for opinion of this Court. The questions are :

(2.) THE facts : The petitioner, M/s. R. K. Patnaik, is a registered dealer and is an automatic motor vehicle body builder. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, West Circle, while examining the books of accounts of the dealer for the assessment year 1976-77, found that the dealer had paid Rs. 42,500 as sales tax only at 6 per cent, i. e. , a concessional rate, for the sale of automobile bodies built by it during the quarter ending 31st March, 1977, though according to the Schedule the sale turnover should have been taxed at 12 per cent. The case of the dealer before the assessing authority was that the bodies fitted on the chassis of motor vehicles were not component parts coming within the mischief of serial No. 57 of the rate chart and thus were liable to be taxed at 6 per cent only. The Sales Tax Officer negatived the contention of the dealer and charged sales tax on the turnover of the sale of bus bodies at 12 per cent. The petitioner had also failed before both the appellate authorities, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, but, however, succeeded in getting a reference made to this Court of the two questions of law indicated above.

(3.) THIS question is no longer res integra and has fallen for consideration at least before 5 different High Courts by this time. The reported cases which have been already noticed by the Tribunal in its order were also placed before us. The courts in India have taken somewhat divergent views on this question. While the High Courts of Madras and Bombay in [1969] 23 STC 374 (Simpson and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras) and [1975] 36 STC 242 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayanand Khira and Co. Pvt. Ltd.) respectively have taken a view in favor of the petitioner, the High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana have taken a contrary view, that is, against the petitioner.