STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BABULAL VISHAMBHAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer Alwar against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) Jaipur dated 5. 7. 61. The circumstances leading to this revision are that the opposite party M/s Babulal Vishambhar Dayal Kathoomar were assessed to sales-tax by the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer Alwar on a total turn-over of Rs. 5,100/- and were also charged the penalty of Rs. 5/ -. The break-up of this turn-over was made up of the sale of the imported goods as well as ornaments. The sale of imported goods was valued at only Rs. 1,100/ -. The remaining sum of Rs. 4000/- was made up of ornaments not so imported. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur. He questioned the assessment on both these sums. The assessment of sales-tax on the sale of ornaments worth Rs. 4000/-was attacked on the ground that he had purchased them from registered dealers in Rajasthan itself after paying tax. THIS plea was rejected by the learned Dy. Commissioner on the ground that the sale of gold and silver ornaments was taxable at the last point and it was the assessee who had sold them to the consumers and he would therefore be treated to be the last dealer for the purposes of taxation. As for the tax on the other amount of Rs. 1100/- imposed on imported goods, the assessment was contested on the ground that the total amount of imports did not exceed Rs. 5000/- as required by law. He relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in (1957) 8 S. T. C. 429. The learned Dy. Commissioner accepted this plea and held that when the imported goods did not exceed Rs. 5000/-as required vide sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he could not be taxed for this amount and he set aside the assessment made accordingly. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE ground urged on behalf of the Assessing Authority is that the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling relied on did not apply to Rajasthan, the provisions in the two Acts being different. THE emphasis is laid on the difference in the definition of the expression "turn-over" given in the Acts of the two States.