Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether excise duty paid on raw tobacco used in manufacturing chewing tobacco was deductible in computing the taxable turnover of the goods sold, and whether the proviso to section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, entitled the dealer to rebate of that duty.
Analysis: Chewing tobacco was held to be a manufactured product distinct from raw tobacco because the material underwent a series of processing steps, including soaking, shredding, drying, addition of flavouring essences, and packing. Under rule 5(1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, only excise duty paid in respect of the goods actually sold by the dealer could be deducted in computing net turnover. Since excise duty had been paid only on raw tobacco and not on chewing tobacco, the duty was not deductible. The proviso to section 5 was construed as dealing with sales tax under the Act and as granting rebate only in respect of tax paid on raw tobacco used in manufacturing goods covered by clause (vii), not excise duty.
Conclusion: The dealer was not entitled to deduct excise duty paid on raw tobacco in computing taxable turnover of chewing tobacco, and the rebate claim failed.