1966 (10) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants.   --------------------------------------------------   The judgment of the Court was delivered by   SHAH, J.-The appellants are dealers carrying on business in chewing tobacco. They purchase raw tobacco from dealers in the State of Madras and convert it into chewing tobacco and sell it. For the period April 1, 1957 to December 12, 1957, the appellants sold ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax with effect from December 13, 1957. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rejected this contention. It was contended before him that the pack- ing material becomes unfit for any use after "chewing tobacco" is taken out and that it has no resale value because it consists of small bits of paper. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rejected the contention observing that "packing material had sale value ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently of chewing tobacco cannot under the general law be implied. In M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory v. The State of Andhra Pradesh C.A. No. 326 of 1965 decided on January 13, 1966; [1966] 17 S.T.C. 624., this Court had to consider the question whether packing material is taxable when preparations of tobacco are sold, and by a Government notification purchases and sales of tobacco are exem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rticular figure for a specified number and handed them over to a customer in a cheap cardboard container of insignificant value, he intended to sell the cardboard container and the customer intended to buy the same. It is not possible to state as a proposition of law that whenever particular goods were sold in a container the parties did not intend to sell and buy the container also. Many cases ma....