1973 (7) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioners in this case had sold iron and steel to Messrs. Singareni Collieries Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, to the extent of Rs. 5,41,888.67 and to Messrs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, to the extent of Rs. 19,134.72. The petitioners also sold to the Regional Housing Engineer, Hyderabad Housing Board, goods to an extent of Rs. 91,029.17.   As regards the sales made to the first ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be availed of by the petitioners for the purpose of getting the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. This is the view taken by the assessing authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once the C form declarations had been produced in respect of the inter-State sales, the benefit of concessional rate of tax c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....using Board for whom the goods were purchased was a department of the Government. On the basis of these D form declarations given by the Hyderabad Housing Board, the petitioners claimed the concessional rate of tax. But, the authorities below held that the Hyderabad Housing Board is not a department of the Government and, therefore, the D form declarations issued by the Housing Board are not in or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alls under section 8(1)(a), the question of furnishing D form declarations under section 8(4)(b) will arise. But, if the sale is held to be not to a department of the Government then the application of section 8(4)(b) will not arise. In this case, all the authorities have proceeded on the footing that the Housing Board is not a department or a limb of the Government. Even before us, the petitioner....