Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1959 (7) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vember, 1952, to 24th March, 1953, and by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (unamended) in respect of the period from 25th March, 1953, to 31st March, 1954. The applicants were subjected to both the general tax as well as the special tax, and it was only the levy of the special tax that was disputed. The dispute was as regards the sale of combs made of plastic in which the applicants dealt; and the two items we were concerned with were items Nos. 30 and 33 in Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952, and the corresponding items of Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (unamended). Item No. 30 read as follows:"Description of goods Rate of Special tax Deduction under clause (ii) of section 11. Perfumery (excluding synt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder entry 33 of Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952, and the corresponding entry No. 34 of Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (unamended), the price of a comb being less than 12 annas. Mr. N. C. Mehta for the applicants contended that the fact that the notification referred to above specifically excluded combs other than those intended for being worn in the hair showed that the original intention had been to include such combs in entry 30 as toilet articles; that, therefore, they must have been excluded from entry 33; and that if they were originally intended to be excluded from entry 33 it must be held that they had remained excluded from the said entry throughout, so that the result of the notification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... G.N. Joshi, for the State. JUDGMENT SHAH, J.-These two references raise common questions and we propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment. The two references relate to two periods 1st of November, 1952, to the 31st of March, 1953, and the 1st of April, 1953, to the 31st of March, 1954. For the first period upto the 24th March, 1953, the liability to tax was to be assessed under the Sales Tax Ordinance (No. 2) of 1952 and for the remaining seven days it was governed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. For the second period the liability to tax was to be assessed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. At the relevant time, the goods sold which were rendered liable to sales tax were charged with payment of general tax and certain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t make an attempt to reconcile the entries. If by a special notification it was intended to exclude combs including combs made out of plastic materials from liability to payment of sales tax under entry No. 30, we would require a very much stronger indication than the mere generic description in entry No. 33 referring to articles made out of plastic as including combs made of plastic and liable to tax imposed by that entry. It is true that entry No. 33 was amended as from the 1st of January, 1953, and it was divided into four sub-heads. Under the second and third sub-heads, articles made of plastic sold at the rate not exceeding annas 12 each or when sold by length at a rate not exceeding annas 12 per yard and all other articles made of pla....