TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop for job work is entry of goods for "consumption", "use" or "sale" within the meaning of the entry tax law. (ii) Whether the appellant was a "dealer" so as to attract the provisions of the entry tax law, including the registration requirement and the bar under the exclusion provision.
Issue (i): Whether industrial machinery brought into a local area for use in a workshop for job work is entry of goods for "consumption", "use" or "sale" within the meaning of the entry tax law.
Analysis: The expression "use" in the charging provision and in entry 52 of List II was held to take its colour from the associated expressions "consumption" and "sale". The Court preferred the larger Bench decisions which explained that the words are of wide import and are not confined to goods that are physically used up or destroyed. Industrial machinery brought into the local area and employed in the workshop for carrying on job work was therefore treated as goods brought for "use" within the statutory sense.
Conclusion: The entry of industrial machinery for workshop use attracted the levy and the contention that "use" means only "used up" was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was a "dealer" so as to attract the provisions of the entry tax law, including the registration requirement and the bar under the exclusion provision.
Analysis: The Court accepted the view that the definition of dealer was wide enough to cover a person who buys or receives scheduled goods and carries on business in the local area, even if the goods are used in the course of job work and not resold as such. The registration provision and the exclusion provision did not assist the appellant, and the reliance on sales tax cases dealing with a narrower factual context was held to be inapplicable.
Conclusion: The appellant was held to be within the statutory definition of dealer and could not avoid the levy on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The levy of entry tax was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: For entry tax purposes, "use" in the charging provision is not confined to goods consumed or exhausted, but includes goods brought into a local area and employed there in the ordinary commercial sense; a dealer may be liable even if the goods are used in job work and not resold as such.
TaxTMI 
