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 cultifar, being a part of a mould board plough, was covered by Schedule I of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and therefore exempt from tax, so that seizure for non-production of way-bill and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.
Analysis: The goods seized were admitted to be spare parts of a mould board plough. There was no finding that the articles were power-operated implements. The expression used in the relevant entry was held to cover a manually operated agricultural implement, and the exception relating to power-operated implements could not be stretched to treat spare parts of an agricultural implement as taxable merely by analogy. Since the statutory entry was found to be clear, the taxing authority was required to apply the strict letter of the law and could not enlarge the exception by implication. The orders of seizure, revision and penalty were found to rest on an incorrect understanding of the statutory entry and on no proper reasoning.
Conclusion: Cultifar, being part of a manually operated agricultural implement, was covered by Schedule I and not liable to tax. The seizure and the penalty under section 71 were unsustainable and were set aside.