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 pea-gravels supplied for use as tube-well packing material fall within item 29 of the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 as stone, stone chips, or products or sub-products arising out of bricks or stones.
Analysis: Under the Act, tax is levied only on turnover from sale of taxable goods as specified in the Schedule. In construing a fiscal entry, words of everyday use are to be understood in their common, trade, or commercial parlance and not in their scientific or technical sense. The nomenclature used by the assessing authority is not conclusive. The entry in question covers bricks, brick-bats, jhama, metals, stone chips, other products or sub-products arising out of bricks or stones, and kiln-burnt tiles, all of which are ordinarily associated with building or road construction. The evidence showed that pea-gravels are not commonly known as stone or stone chips, are not used for building or road construction, and are used instead for filtration and percolation of water in tube-wells. On that basis, pea-gravels could not be classified as stone or a sub-product of stone under item 29.
Conclusion: Pea-gravels do not fall within item 29 of the Schedule and are not taxable under that entry; the assessment was liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal entry must be construed in its popular or commercial sense, and goods are taxable only if they are ordinarily understood as falling within the chosen entry; technical identity alone is insufficient where common parlance points otherwise.