Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1984 (2) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned a total turnover of Rs. 3,46,800.50 and claimed exemptions on account of sales in the course of export of goods worth Rs. 2,47,161.50. After excluding a sum of Rs. 450 on account of sale made to a registered dealer in Haryana, the Assessing Authority disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption. The assessee went up in appeal and raised two contentions: (i) that the order of the Assessing Authority, holding that the sale of bone-meal of the value of Rs. 2,47,161.50 was not in the course of export out of the territory of India, was illegal and untenable and (ii) that bone-meal was covered by the expression "fertilizer" and was exempt under the State Act, and therefore, the inter-State sale of this commodity would not be exigible to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....customs frontiers of India? (3) Whether bone-meal was not fertilizer and exempt from the Central Sales Tax Act because of the mention of fertilizer in Schedule B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as applicable to Haryana during the relevant period? (4) Whether the department was not bound to bifurcate the sales of bonemeal used as a fertilizer as distinct from its use for other purposes?   It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee that questions Nos. (1) and (2) stand concluded against it and in favour of the Revenue by the Supreme Court decisions in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC) and Manganese Ore (I.) Ltd. v. Regional Assistant Commissioner [1976] 37 STC 489 (SC). Respectfully....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v. State of U.P. [1980] 46 STC 112 it has been held that bone-meal is a fertilizer. They included the report of the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. In Standard Cyclopedia of Modern Agriculture, Volume 11 (page 185), a distinction has been drawn between bone-meals and bone-dusts. According to Sri Swaraj Prakash, State Level Leather Officer, Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board, Chandigarh, raw bone is as good a fertilizer as bonemeal and there is no difference in the properties of raw bones and crushed bones. Sri K.V. Raman, Head of the Department of Soil Science College of Agriculture, U.P. Agricultural University, Pantnagar, has however not gone so far and has confined h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pular sense of the term as it was used in every day life. Thus construing, the hume pipes which were generally laid underground and are extremely heavy could not be brought in use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms. Here the user of the goods has been taken note of to find as to what is popularly understood by sanitary fittings. It was not solely on the test of user that the hume pipes were not held to be sanitary fittings. In any case, this was a decision rendered by a Bench of two judges. In Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd.'s case [1978] 42 STC 433 (SC), a Bench of three Honourable judges did not accept the theory of user of a commodity to determine its character for the purpose of levy of tax. It was observed as under: "When yarn, whe....