TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt-company used the trade-mark or brand name of any product of an existing industrial unit. The applicant is a manufacturer of T.V. sets and the date of first sale was May 8, 1990. The applicant filed an application for eligibility certificate under section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with Notification No. 1177 F.T. dated May 31, 1983, on July 30, 1990, before the Assistant Commissioner, Behala Circle. The case was transferred by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Section, respondent No. 4, who rejected the application by order dated May 29, 1992, on the sole ground that the applicant had violated one important condition regarding use of brand name of Videocon In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-inopposition denying the allegations of the applicant. A reply has also been filed by the applicant. As regards the allegation that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the application for eligibility certificate, was vitiated by influence from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned advocate for the respondents, contended that the transfer of the case from the Assistant Commissioner, Behala Circle to Assistant Commissioner, Central Section, was made, because enquiries were required to be conducted about the transaction of the applicant-company. He explained that there was no mala fides in the transfer, because the Assistant Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, upon a reading of the impugned order dated May 29, 1992, passed by the Assistant Commissioner we find that the case was transferred to him by order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated September 3, 1990. From the circumstances brought to our notice we do not find any material to hold that the transfer of the case was not bona fide or that the Assistant Commissioner's order dated May 29, 1992, was passed under the influence of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. This contention on behalf of the applicant is, therefore, rejected. Mr. Charkraborty, appearing for the applicant, has referred to several decisions, namely, AIR 1972 SC 2379 (Sethi v. R.P. Kapur), [1964] 15 STC 186 (Cal); AIR 1963 Cal 409 (Durga Sree St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the three parties for evading tax. He wanted to defend the impugned orders for this reason. Whatever may be the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner it will be clear from a reading of the impugned orders dated May 29, 1992 and January 19, 1993, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner, respectively that the T.V. sets are manufactured by the applicant-company with the help of components including kits purchased from Videocon International Ltd. Therefore, there is no dispute that the sets are manufactured by the applicant-company in its small-scale industrial unit. It is not also disputed that the applicant-company sold the sets with their own brand name "Sizma" to M/s. Venugo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or sellers as Videocon T.V. sets and, therefore, the applicant could not get the benefit of tax exemption. Simply because the brand name of the T.V. sets is changed at the third point of sale, the applicantcompany cannot be blamed or held responsible for violation of clause (vi) of the explanation in Notification No. 1177 F.T. dated March 31, 1983. Mr. Gopal Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, was right in submitting that the Additional Commissioner directed his attention to a question which was beyond his jurisdiction. The Additional Commissioner said that the applicant had an unholy alliance with the two other companies upon a mutual understanding to promote business interest by claiming tax benefit. The provision of ....