PREM ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE learned Excise and Taxation Commissioner in its order dated August 27, 2008 (annexure A1) rejected the contention of the appellant that gypsum has the same chemistry as that of POP and thus, free from payment of tax. It was held that the gypsum has many uses. It can be used in plaster, cement, paints and ornamental stones. The intention of entry 16 is obvious, i.e., gypsum used only in relation to improvement of quality of soil is tax -free. POP is certainly not gypsum and not tax -free.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the chemical properties of gypsum and POP are same and that the only difference is the water content in POP. Therefore, it is a tax -free product falling within entry 16 of Schedule A of the Act. Alternative argument was that it falls within Sr. No. 71 of list attached to entry 58 of Schedule B, i.e., industrial inputs and packing materials. The goods falling in Schedule B attract tax at four per cent. It is contended that POP is nothing but sulphate, therefore, it would attract tax at four per cent alone.