Tax treatment of cement packed in jute bags depends on whether the sale is composite or separate after omission of the proviso.

After omission of proviso (vii) to Section 15(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, sale of cement packed in jute bags is not automatically taxed at the cement rate. The tax incidence depends on the true nature of the transaction and the intention of the parties: if the cement and the bags are found to be separate sales, each item is taxable at its own applicable rate; if the bags are merely a mode of delivery, composite treatment may apply. The issue is factual and must be determined on the evidence by the assessing or appellate authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after omission of proviso (vii) to Section 15(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, the sale of cement packed in jute bags was to be taxed as a composite sale at the cement rate, or whether the cement and the bags were to be treated as separate taxable items at their respective rates.

Analysis: The rate of tax under the Act was governed by Section 15(1), and proviso (vii), when in force, required the value of goods packed in jute bags to be charged at the rate applicable to such goods. Once that proviso was omitted, the decisive question became the true nature of the transaction: whether the parties intended a single composite sale of cement with the bags merely serving as a convenient mode of delivery, or a sale of cement and a separate sale of bags. The Court treated this as a matter requiring factual investigation by the statutory authorities, to be decided on the material showing the nature and ingredients of the transaction and the intention of the parties. If the transaction was found to be a sale of cement and bags separately, each item would attract tax at its own applicable rate.

Conclusion: The omission of proviso (vii) did not automatically compel taxation only at the cement rate. The question was factual and had to be determined by the assessing or appellate authorities on the evidence.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on the disputed factual issue and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with the legal position clarified that separate taxation would apply if cement and bags were distinct sales.

Ratio Decidendi: After omission of a deeming proviso governing packed goods, the tax incidence depends on the true nature of the transaction and the intention of the parties, which must be ascertained on facts; if the goods and packing material are separate sales, each is taxable at its own rate.

---