1977 (4) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the course of business. However, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that in view of explanation to section 2(d), even such transaction when they were incidental or ancillary or in connection with the business were taxable and, in support of its decision, relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd.[1973] 31 S.T.C. 426 (S.C.). The Tribunal, therefore, sustained the addition as made by the sales tax authorities. It is this conclusion which Is now challenged. In view of the definition in section 2(d) read with the explanation thereof, it is clear that even the transactions incidental or ancillary to the business carried on by the assessee will be taxable. The test as to whether the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the assessee is that these castings, which are used as parts of mould board plough, come within the scope of this notification as parts of agricultural implements. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that these moulds themselves did not come within the scope of agricultural implements and that the agricultural implements contemplated by such notification would only be those implements which are liable to be used as such and not parts thereof. We consider that the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee deserves to be accepted. The Government has granted exemption on the sales of agricultural implements. The word "implements" means tools or instruments. Parts of tools and parts of instruments would also be implemen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessing authority merely issued a notice without referring to any provision showing that he proposed to revise the assessment. According to the learned counsel, this notice without reference to section 16 of the Act would not clothe the said authority with a power to revise the assessment. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel was that in order to vest himself with a power to revise the assessment which had been completed and become final, the authorities should take powers under the particular provisions of the Act in order to disturb the finality of the said assessment. We are not satisfied that this contention has any merit. There is no dispute that the assessing authority had power to revise the assessment under s....