HEMRAJ UDYOG JAIPUR Vs. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the assessee against the order dated November 21, 1978 passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision under Section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE assessee manufactures vegetable oil and carries on the business of selling vegetable oil as well as its packing material empty tins in respect of both of which it is a registered dealer under the Act and both these items are entered in its registration certificate of a dealer. For the year 1975-76 assessment was made of the sales of vegetable oil packed in tins made by the assessee. In the bills prepared by the assessee the cost of empty tins used as packing material for the vegetable oil was shown separately. THE sales tax charges for vegetable oil was at the rate of 7%, while that for the packing material, namely tins was 3% as prescribed for the packing material. THE assessing authority also included the amount of freight in the taxable turnover. THE assessee appealed to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)), which was rejected. THE assessee then preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue which has been partly allowed by the impugned order dated November 21, 1978 and the case has been remanded to the assessing authority for further action according to the directions given in the order.

(3.) IT was stated at the Bar that in a similar case a different view had been taken by me in S. B. Sales Tax Revision No. 90 of 1987 (old Ref. No. 72 of 1980), M/s. Malva Vanaspati & Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur, decided on April 28, 1987. A perusal of that decision clearly shows that the above point was not even urged in that case on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, no question arose for deciding it. In the present case it has already been held that there was an implied contract for sale of empty tins separate from the contract of sale of vegetable oil and that the bills ware prepared accordingly. That decision is, therefore, distinguishable. At any rate, this point was neither raised nor decided in that case.