1991 (3) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anure, etc., to the tune of Rs. 27,358.15. Being of the view that the gunny bags had been utilised in the course of business for sale of the goods, the assessing authority held the same to be liable to tax. Indeed, the dealer had not in the accounts maintained any separate account for the sale of the gunny bags. 2.. Aggrieved, the assessee went up to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner referred to rule 6(cc) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, and opined that the charges for packing whether or not such amount is specified and charged for by the dealer separately in respect of the goods not liable to tax at the hands of the assessee are exempt from tax and he accordingly set as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccording to the learned counsel the sale of paddy and rice in the gunny bags was made by the dealer without separately charging for the gunny bags and, therefore, the price of gunny bags could not be added to the taxable turnover of the assessee. The other argument raised on behalf of the assessee by the learned counsel is that since paddy and rice were exempted articles for the purpose of sales tax, the gunny bags which were used as packing material of paddy and rice should also be treated as exempt and the same could not be subjected to sales tax. We have given our consideration to the submissions made at the bar. 4.. The exemption under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is in respect of sale of paddy and rice. However, when ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....separately fixed made no difference to the assessment of sales tax. 6.. In State of Tamil Nadu v. V.V. Vanniaperumal & Co. [1990] 76 STC 203, a Full Bench of this Court had also an occasion to consider a somewhat similar argument raised in that case. Approving the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Natarajan and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 39 STC 443, the Full Bench held that the price of the tin container, where the sale of oil had been made in tins, was not deductible as packing charges. Their Lordships of the Full Bench noticed with approval the submission made by the Additional Government Pleader in K. Natarajan and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 39 STC 443 (Mad.), that since the dealer-company purchased ....