Iron and steel levy limits and attached business tax liability: tax cannot be imposed twice, and control determines the liable dealer.

Iron shafts falling within the specified category of iron and steel under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be subjected to tax again where tax had already been paid at the purchase stage, because the statute restricted levy on the commodity to one stage. In relation to the attached brick kiln business, where the kiln was under attachment and managed by a custodian or supardar, tax liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act attached to the person in actual control of the business, not to the assessee who was not running it during the relevant period. The Commissioner's challenges therefore failed on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether iron shafts were taxable as iron and steel under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act and hence exempt from further taxation where tax had already been paid at the purchase stage. (ii) Whether, when a brick kiln was under attachment and run by a custodian or supardar, the sales tax liability for the business attached to the assessee or to the person in actual management under section 20 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether iron shafts were taxable as iron and steel under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act and hence exempt from further taxation where tax had already been paid at the purchase stage.

Analysis: Iron and steel within section 14(iv) included steel bars and rods under clause (c). Iron shafts sold by the assessee were treated as falling within that category. Section 15(a) restricted levy so that tax on the specified commodities could not be imposed at more than one stage. As tax had already been paid at the purchase stage, further levy on the sales turnover was not permissible.

Conclusion: The turnover of iron shafts was not liable to sales tax again, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether, when a brick kiln was under attachment and run by a custodian or supardar, the sales tax liability for the business attached to the assessee or to the person in actual management under section 20 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The finding was that the assessee himself had not run the kiln during the relevant years, and that the kiln was in the custody of another person after attachment. Section 20 provided that where a dealer's business was under the control of a receiver, manager, or similar custodian appointed under an order of court, tax was leviable from that person in the same manner as if the dealer were conducting the business himself. On that footing, the liability, if any, did not rest on the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable for the tax on the attached kiln business, and the revisions failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The common effect of the decision was that the Commissioner's challenges failed and the assessee's position was upheld on both questions of tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods expressly falling within the specified entries in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be subjected to tax at a second stage where the statute restricts multi-stage levy, and where an attached business is carried on by a court-appointed custodian or manager, the tax liability attaches to that person rather than the dealer who is not conducting the business.

---