TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (5) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint tax at a rate not exceeding four per cent was leviable on sales thereof. Having referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court in the application itself, the applicant states that the moot question is how the "product", namely, HDC turnout sleepers were identified by the people dealing in or using them. Allegedly, the "process" undertaken by the applicant did not amount to manufacture and did not bring into existence a new commodity. Admittedly, the sleepers were "fabricated" by the applicant according to the specifications given by the railways. The second complaint is that in violation of the decision in [1976] 38 STC 577 (SC) (Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari) tax was levied on disposal of old and discarded furniture and fixtures, etc., valued at Rs. 34,417 and Rs. 61,077. The applicant contends that although profit-motive was eliminated by the definition of "business", other ingredients must be satisfied before it can be said that the person was carrying on business of selling the goods. The third point taken by the applicant is that purchase tax could not be levied under section 6C of the said 1941 Act on Rs. 6,10,694.58 being the estimated value of materials involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] 9 STC 353. Estimation of three per cent of the total contract value for determining the turnover of purchase for the purpose of purchase tax under section 6C is said to be reasonable. As regards the last point regarding transfer of the appeal from one Assistant Commissioner to another, reference has been made to the power conferred on the Commissioner under section 3(2A) of the said Act of 1941 and to the order dated June 30, 1983, by which the Commissioner had transferred all matters relating to the applicant from one charge to another and from one Assistant Commissioner to another. 4.. At the time of hearing Mr. P.K. Bose, the learned Advocate for the applicant, did not press the last point, namely, the transfer of the appeal from one Assistant Commissioner to another. Moreover, at the time of hearing the learned State Representative produced photocopies of orders dated June 30, 1983, passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes transferring all cases and matters in respect of the applicant from the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Radhabazar Charge to the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section and Assistant Commissioner, Central Section in respect of the said Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e price. In the application itself reference was made to the case of D. Sarkar & Bros. Ltd. [1957] 8 STC 478 (Cal) in this connection. It will be enough to say that the said decision did not deal with purchase tax and it struck down a rule regarding calculation of price of goods as arbitrary. Here, the Commercial Tax Officer made an estimation in his own judgment. The challenge to his estimation was ultimately given up. 6.. As regards the complaint of the applicant about levy of tax on disposal of old and discarded furniture and fixtures, Mr. Bose referred to [1976] 38 STC 577 (SC) (Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari). It was held in that case that after the profit-motive was eliminated from the definition of "business" in the Andhra Pradesh Act, the other ingredients of business, viz., volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of sale and purchase must be satisfied in order that the person could be said to be carrying on the business of selling goods. By that criterion, it was held, the Forest Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh could not be said to be carrying on the business of selling forest produce because auctions of forest produce were being held by that departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sleepers for use by the railways. Certain literatures of the applicant-company giving diagrams and description of turnout sleepers were submitted at the hearing. The railway specifications for turnout steel sleepers were also filed. There was no denial that crossing sleepers and turnout steel sleepers are different objects and used for different purposes. Crossing sleepers are used for railway crossings and turnout steel sleepers are used for turnouts, namely, branching off railway lines from one line into two or more lines. Moreover, all the materials which have been made available to us clearly indicate that turnout steel sleepers are not known in the commercial circles or among those who deal in and use the same as anything other than turnout steel sleepers. In other words, turnout steel sleepers are known as such and not known as crossing sleepers or any other kind of sleepers among those who use and deal in them. The applicant itself also sold these goods as steel turnout sleepers. Annexure "A-26" to the present application is the grounds of appeal that was preferred by the applicant. It was admitted in ground No. (8) that the applicant purchased sleeper bars, then cut them i....