STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHOGRAJ MOTILAL JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the assessing authority under Section 14 (1) of the RST Act against an order dated 16-10 65 by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Udaipur in respect of assessment for the period 1-4-62 to 31-3 63 in the case M/s. Bhograj Motilal of Jodhpur. The revision application is on the following points - (i) The Dy. Commissioner erred in setting aside tax imposed at 10% on 'attar' imported by the assessee on 'c' forms under the CST Act, and shown as used in the manufacture of snuff. (ii) The Dy. Commissioner also erred in reducing the penaltv under Section 16 (1) (g) from Rs. 200/-to Rs. 51/-and under Section 16 (l) (c) from Rs 200/-to Rs. 100/ -. In regard to point (i), the Dy. Commissioner made the following observations in his order - "it is also admitted that the assessee is a manufacturer of snuff and in the application for R. C. under the CST Act he had disclosed Attar as raw material for the manufacture of snuff. Such being the case the mere mention in the R. C. under the CST Act that the import of Attar was allowed for resale should not be construed to that according to the R. C. Under the CST. Act the dealer was entitled to import Attar only for resale and not for use in the manufacture of snuff. In fact the entries in the R. C. granted to the assessee should have been read with reference to the entries in the application submitted by him for R. C. under the CST Act. "

(2.) THIS shows that while the dealer had shown 'attar' in his application for registration under the CST Act as being required for resale as well as manufacture, in the Registration Certificate granted by the assessing authority, 'attar' was authorised only for resale The assessing authority was within his powers to allow any goods for use in manufacture or to disallow them. If 'attar' was not allowed in the R. C. as being required for use in manufacture, the fact that this was asked for in the dealer's application would make no difference. The reasoning adopted by the Dy. Commissioner that the Certificate should be read with the application, and should in the light of the application be so read as to include 'attar' as required for use in manufacture, while it does not actually include any such entry, is untenable, and wholly erroneous.