TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (1) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24th October, 1965. Respondent No. 1, Messrs. Radha Ballabh Sons, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee"), carries on business of buying and selling iron, electric goods, hardware, etc., and is registered under the Act. The petitioner, Commercial Taxes Officer, 'A' Circle, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing authority"), assessed the petitioner (sic) on a taxable turnover of Rs. 18,18,883.08 and also imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 500 under section 16(1)(c). Penalty to the tune of Rs. 14,694.72 was also imposed under section 16(1)(b). In addition to the penalty imposed under section 16(1)(c) and 16(1)(b), a penalty of Rs. 5,840.32 was imposed under section 16(1)(e). Aggrieved by the assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that Circle 'A' in Jaipur City was not properly constituted before 20th October, 1967, and in setting aside penalties imposed under section 16(1)(c) and (e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954? (3) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the tax realised on the turnover of Rs. 1,66,277.21 of iron and steel be refunded to the assessee in spite of the fact that no S.T. 17 declarations were submitted by the dealer? (4) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the contract to supply material and providing and fixing of electricity with the State Public Works Department was works contract involving no sales ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no validly created Circle 'A' in Jaipur City before 20th October, 1967. It is sufficient to point out that the Board has discretion in the matter and 'if in the facts and circumstances it exercised its discretion in favour of the assessee, no question of law can be said to arise in the matter. We are, therefore, of the opinion that question No. (1) does not arise out of the order of the Board. Before coming to question No. (2) it would be proper to first take up questions Nos. (3) and (4). The question of imposition of penalty under section 16(1)(c) and (e) would depend upon our decision with respect to questions Nos. (3) and (4). We shall, therefore, take up questions Nos. (3) and (4) first. Question No. (3) has arisen on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeds of sale of goods,- (i) on which no tax is leviable under this Act, (ii) which have already been subjected to tax under this Act, (iii) which have been sold to persons outside the State for consumption outside the State, and (iv) which are taxable at a point of sale within the State subsequent to the sale by the dealer and such sale is covered by a declaration as may be required under any provision of this Act or the Rules made thereunder: Provided that where a dealer in goods which are exempted from tax unconditionally, sells any bardana, container or any other packing material received along with such goods at the time of purchase thereof by him, the taxable turnover in respect of such sales shall, at the option of such deale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for accommodating a particular customer or a purchaser, a dealer obtains goods from another dealer and immediately disposes of the same to the said customer or purchaser, the sale in respect of such goods shall be included in the turnover of the latter dealer alone. The Board has come to the conclusion that explanation (iv) to section 2(t) applies to the present case. Now, the single member of the Board in para 5 of the judgment has come to the following conclusion: "Goods worth Rs. 1,66,277.21 were supplied by the dealer to M/s. Vijailal Siyasaran to accommodate the customer firm who supplied these goods to the Government." The Division Bench of the Board held that iron and steel is taxable at the last point and in view of explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Works Department to supply material as well as installing the same and thus the contract was indivisible so that no separate sale could be spelled out from the contract. The question whether a particular transaction is a works contract or involves a sale depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. But the sine qua non for determining such a question is whether there was a sale of any goods by the contractor or there was an indivisible contract in which the assessee was to supply the goods as well as do the work also. In the present case the Board has observed as under: "We find that a cumulative contract was taken from the Public Works Department to supply material and providing and fixing electricity. The contract cannot be bifu....