1964 (1) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent year 1959-60 and S.T.R.P. 47 of 1963 relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59. In these petitions, the question of law for decision is whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed by him. There is no dispute that the transactions with which we are concerned in these cases fall within the scope of section 5 of the Act. The controversy centers round the question whether they are exempted under section 8 read with entry 28 of the Fifth Schedule. It is needless to say that it is for the assessee to satisfactorily establish that he is entitled to the exemption claimed. This aspect of the case does not appear to have been borne in mind by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Entry 28 in the Fifth Sch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For purposes of explanation (1) to the Fifth Schedule, in respect of any village industry specified in column (2) of the following table, the number of units of production of each such industry shall not exceed the number specified in the corresponding entries of column (3) of the said Table, namely: * * *" Rule 25B reads: "(1) The Commissioner may on an application from a dealer who is a bona fide producer of products of any village industry referred to in serial No. 28 of the Fifth Schedule grant a certificate of recognition, if he is satisfied that he is a bona fide producer entitled to the exemption from tax: Provided that before granting any such certificate, the Commissioner may, if necessary, consult the Khadi and Village In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he requirements of that entry were entitled to the exemption in question. The submission of Sri B. V. Krishnaswami Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, that as the State Government had not prescribed the maximum number of units of production or the persons employed as contemplated by the explanation to entry 28, his client could not have applied for obtaining the required recognition by the Commissioner, is not correct as seen earlier. On this aspect the learned counsel for the assessee tried to take support from the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhima Balu Madigar v. Basangouda Mamgouda Patil [1954] 56 Bom. L.R. 520. The ratio of that decision does not bear on the point under consideration. It deals with a different....