COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two sales tax revision applications have been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dated November 30, 1985, whereby the Board of Revenue accepted the revision petitions filed by the non-petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited, under section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"), read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Central Act"), against the two separate orders - one passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur and the other passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur, on April 1, 1983. Common question of law are involved in both the revision petitions and, therefore, I deem it appropriate to decide both the revision petitions by a common order.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited, Khetri, is a Government of INdia undertaking being a company registered under the Companies Act. It is having copper mines in the State of Rajasthan at Khetri, Dariba, Rajpura, Kolihan and Chandmari. It has also got mines in the State of Bihar at Ghatshila and in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Main activity of the company relates to exploration, prospecting and mining of minerals (copper in particular), extraction and fabrication of metals and manufacture of copper and alloys like brass in various forms including sheets and strips. The copper ore extracted from the mines is sent to the concentrator plant where percentage of copper is increased by the process of conspiration. Concentrated ore is then despatched to the smelting plant and the final product comes out in the form of sheets which are described as cathodes, rods (bars), etc.

(3.) SECTION 10 specifies the consequences of furnishing of a false certificate or declaration under section 6 (2) or section 6-A (1 ). Penalty which could be imposed as a result of furnishing of false declaration may extend to imprisonment of 6 months or fine or both and in case of continuing offence daily fine of Rs. 50 is required to be imposed. Therefore, if it is found that the non-petitioner had in fact furnished declaration in form "f" and the petitioner has not been able to establish that the declaration furnished by the non-petitioner was false, the burden of proof which rested on the non-petitioner to prove that the movement of goods from one State to another was not occasioned in pursuance of sale of goods, stood discharged and the non-petitioner cannot be called upon to make the payment of tax in regard to sale allegedly made in the course of inter-State trade.