1973 (12) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee that he was not a manufacturer. On appeal the findings as well as the quantum were affirmed. The assessee took the matter in revision. The Additional Judge (Revisions) held that in view of the decision of this court in Dr. Sukh Deo v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.[1963] 14 S.T.C. 581., to the effect that there cannot be a manufacture unless the resulting produce is a commercially different article, the assessee cannot be said to have manufactured a commercially different article. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dr. Sukh Deo[1969] 23 S.T.C. 385 (S.C.). In view of these decisions it was held that the assessee was not liable to tax under section 3-A as a manufacturer. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons) has not discussed this finding and that he has completely overlooked it. The result is that it cannot be said that the question whether the assessee was assessable to tax under section 3 of the Act as a dealer does arise out of the revisional order; because there is no allegation that this point was even argued before the Additional judge (Revisions). Since the department has not got any question referred to us in regard to the omission by the Additional judge (Revisions) in dealing with the applicability of section 3 of the Act, we cannot, while answering the question referred to us, deal with that aspect. The question though widely worded cannot, in our opinion, include the applicability of section 3 in regard to the assessment of ta....