TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct") for the sale of dhoop and aggarbatti. In the quarterly return filed by the respondent for the assessment year 1973-74, the respondent-firm claimed that the sale of dhoop and aggarbatti be assessed to tax at the rate of 6 per cent. The Assessing Authority did not agree and levied sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The appeal filed by the respondent-firm against the order of assessment was allowed and the Assessing Authority was directed to calculate the sales tax on the sales of dhoop and aggarbatti at the rate of 6 per cent instead of 10 per cent. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner initiated suo motu revisional proceedings to examine the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order, and vide order dated 22nd May, 1979, he s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereupon this Schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly." It is pertinent to mention that in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5, quoted above, the word "luxury" which was juxtaposed between the words "of" and "goods" was omitted with retrospective effect vide Punjab Act No. 11 of 1976 notified on 27th February, 1976 and was deemed to have always been omitted by the said Amendment Act. Entry No. 16 in Schedule A before its substitution vide notification dated 28th September, 1979, read as under: "Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding tooth-paste, toothpowder, kum-kum and soap." On substitution, entry No. 16 was bifurcated up to two entries numbered as 16 and 16-A and these are reproduced below: "16. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attis were required for religious pujas or worship and were to be used by all whether rich or poor, they did not in any way qualify as luxury items. The judgment in Amir Chand's case [1974] 33 STC 120 (P&H) was, therefore, based on the word "luxury " which occurred in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. As already stated above, the word "luxury" was deleted from the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 with retrospective effect and, as such, the judgment of the Division Bench is no longer applicable to the facts of the case. As a matter of fact the first of the two qualifications which were required to be fulfilled (as mentioned by the Division Bench) having become redundant, the only requirement subsisting now is tha....