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 motor vehicle chassis and a motor vehicle with body mounted on it are commercially the same commodity for purposes of purchase tax, and whether the assessee's failure to resell the goods in the same form and condition attracted liability under the relevant sales tax provisions.
Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the mounted body on chassis as falling within the notification covering motor vehicles, chassis and bodies meant for mounting on chassis. The revisionary court held that inclusion of chassis and bodies in the same entry does not make them one commercial commodity. It applied the principle that the same article at different stages may be commercially different, and that articles mentioned under the same heading may still be distinct commodities. Since the dealer purchased chassis and body separately by issuing form III-A and did not resell them in the same form and condition, the statutory condition for exemption from purchase tax was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The chassis and the mounted motor vehicle body were not commercially the same commodity, and purchase tax under section 3-AAAA was attracted.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods mentioned in the same tariff or notification entry may nonetheless be commercially different commodities, and where goods purchased on a resale-in-same-form basis are not resold in that form and condition, purchase tax liability arises.