Purchase tax on construction inputs: no levy on quarry-sourced jelly, but tax upheld on sand bought from unregistered dealers.

Purchase tax was held inapplicable to jelly used in ready mix concrete where the material came from the assessee's own leased quarry and no outside purchase was shown, but it was upheld for sand purchased from unregistered dealers. The double-levy objection on resale tax also failed because the records showed due deduction for the sub-contractor, so the facts did not support taxation of both contractor and sub-contractor on the same turnover. The revision succeeded only for the sand component, while the remaining findings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchase tax was payable on jelly and sand used in the manufacture of ready mix concrete. (ii) Whether resale tax could be levied on both the contractor and the sub-contractor and whether the Tribunal correctly applied the earlier decision on double levy.

Issue (i): Whether purchase tax was payable on jelly and sand used in the manufacture of ready mix concrete.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the jelly used for ready mix concrete was obtained from the assessee's own quarry on lease and royalty had been paid to the Government, so there was no purchase from outside dealers. On that factual basis, purchase tax could not be levied on the jelly component. The assessee, however, had accounted for sand purchased from unregistered dealers, and that component attracted purchase tax.

Conclusion: Purchase tax was not leviable on jelly, but was leviable on sand; the assessee succeeded on jelly and failed on sand.

Issue (ii): Whether resale tax could be levied on both the contractor and the sub-contractor and whether the Tribunal correctly applied the earlier decision on double levy.

Analysis: The records showed that the sub-contractor had been given the due deduction, so the Department was not attempting to impose resale tax on both the original contractor and the sub-contractor. The earlier decision on impermissible double levy had no application because the facts did not disclose double taxation on the same turnover.

Conclusion: Resale tax was not wrongly levied on both the contractor and the sub-contractor, and the Tribunal's reliance on the earlier decision was inapplicable on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of the sand component, and the remaining findings of the Tribunal were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Purchase tax is not exigible on materials proven to have been sourced from the assessee's own quarry, but is exigible where the evidence shows purchase from unregistered dealers; a plea of double levy fails where the factual basis for levy on both contractor and sub-contractor is absent.

---