TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....-This judgment shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 138 of 1984 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Singhai Karelal Kundanlal Trust, Sagar) also inasmuch as common questions arise in both these cases and the assessee in both these cases is the same. 2.. The Board of Revenue which is the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 18th October, 1971 was for Rs. 49,68,044.00 whereas for the period 19th October, 1971 to 5th November, 1972 the transaction was for Rs. 62,61,442.62. Two questions, therefore, came up for consideration. The first question was whether the transactions which represented katchi adhat transactions were taxable. The other question was as to which of the transactions represented katchi adhat transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 175-III of 1980 relating to the period 19th October, 1971 to 5th November, 1972. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that even though the question whether transactions representing katchi adhat transactions were not taxable in the hands of the assessee stood decided by the decision in the case of Karelal Kundanlal [1980] 46 STC 202 (MP) the question as to which of the transactions represented k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxable in the hands of the assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Karelal Kundanlal [1980] 46 STC 202. In that case the question referred to this Court was answered by saying that the assessee was not a dealer in respect of transactions of Rs. 74,00,741.96 and these transactions could not be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. These transactions were katchi a....