Court rules "jhama" not taxable under "bricks" for sales tax, directs collection from purchasing departments.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a sales tax case. It held that "jhama" sold by the petitioners should not have been included in the tax assessment as it was not taxable under the head "bricks." Additionally, the court directed the petitioners to collect tax from purchasing departments for bricks supplied after July 1, 1976, unless faced with resistance, in which case it would be inequitable to demand payment from the dealer's own pocket. The decision did not apply to sales to private persons.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability to pay sales tax on the sale of "jhama"
2. Levying sales tax on bricks supplied after July 1, 1976, with an agreement made prior to that date

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to pay sales tax on the sale of "jhama"
The petitioners, registered dealers under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, were charged sales tax on the sale of "jhama" and bricks supplied after July 1, 1976. The assessing authority considered "jhama" akin to bricks due to both being of the same nature, leading to the imposition of sales tax on "jhama." The petitioners contended that "jhama" and bricks were different, citing precedents where similar items were treated differently for tax purposes. The Act was amended in 1978 to specifically include "jhama" as a taxable commodity. However, a Sales Tax Tribunal decision prior to the amendment held that "jhama" was not taxable under the head "bricks," which was accepted by the department. The court upheld this decision, stating that any deviation after acceptance would be inequitable, concluding that "jhama" sold by the petitioners should not have been included in the tax assessment.

Issue 2: Levying sales tax on bricks supplied after July 1, 1976
The court affirmed that sales tax was applicable to bricks supplied after July 1, 1976, even if the agreement was made before that date. The petitioners argued against paying the tax, as they had not collected it from the purchaser, a government department. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case where the court refrained from asking the dealer to pay tax after a significant delay to avoid hardship. The court directed the petitioners to collect tax from purchasing departments, with no objection from the concerned department on limitation grounds. However, if resistance is faced, it would be deemed inequitable to demand the dealer to pay the tax from their own pocket, as the agreement did not initially include sales tax. This directive was specified not to apply to sales to private persons.

In conclusion, the petition was allowed, with the court ruling in favor of the petitioners based on the above analysis.

---