TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (9) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overn all of them. 2. Before adverting to the aforesaid question, it may be noticed at the outset that in some of the writ petitions two preliminary questions on the point of limitation had arisen when these cases first came up before a Division Bench. Considering the conflict of authority, these two questions were referred for decision by the order dated 21st February, 1979, to a larger Bench. Consequent thereto the Full Bench returned the answer to the legal issue of limitation and sent the case back for decision on merits. 3.. Though the question before us is pristinely legal it is nevertheless apt to give the background of facts from those in C.W.P. No. 302 of 1978. Messrs. Northern India Rubber Mills deal in the sale and supply of "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... core of the matter now is whether the judgment aforesaid calls for reconsideration. 5.. To narrow down the controversy it first calls for notice that Mr. Sarwal herein has claimed exemption specifically under item 30-B of the schedule. For facility of reference this may first be quoted: "30-B. Such varieties of canvas cloth, tarpaulins and similar other products, manufactured with cloth as base, as are manufactured in textile mills, powerloom factories and processing factories." In the Laxmi Machinery Store's case[1977] 39 S.T.C. 87. , an identical question arose with the added ground that item 30-C was also sought to be invoked. In fact in the said case a specific sales tax reference had been made by the Tribunal on the question wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arpaulins', which precede the expression 'similar other products'. In order to be classified as a product similar to canvas cloth and tarpaulins, it must be of the same nature as canvas cloth and tarpaulins. The very different use to which canvas cloth and tarpaulin on the one hand and rubber transmission belting on the other are put clearly indicates that they cannot be considered similar in nature. That was the view which was taken by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, and we agree with that view." 6.. It is plain that the aforesaid observations completely cover the present case. Unable to refer any meaningful criticism of the terse though impeccable reasoning of the Division Bench, Mr. Sarwal had attempted to argue that the same was no lon....