2010 (4) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel appearing for the parties, the matters are heard for final disposal. By this judgment we will dispose of all the aforenoticed appeals as a common question of law on somewhat similar facts arises for consideration of this court in all these appeals. However, for the purpose of brevity and to avoid repetition of facts, we would be referring to the facts of S.L.P. (C) No. 11103 of 2009. All these aforenoticed appeals, though refer to different respondents, all being timber merchants but the principal question raised in all these appeals is identical, whether the "ballies" can fall under the expression "timber" so as to justify levying of higher sales tax. M/s. Rijhumal Jeevandas (hereinafter referred to as, "the assessee") is a conce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "timber" was not justified. Consequently, the entire demand itself was set aside. The order of the appellate authority dated October 18, 2006 was challenged by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward III, Circle B, Kota, before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer which vide its judgment dated June 11, 2007 found that the "ballies" are not "timber" and upheld the view taken by the first appellate authority and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Department. Aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer the Department preferred a revision under section 86 of the Act and besides referring to the facts, the following questions of law were framed for consideration of the High Court: "(i) Whether, in the facts and circu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the order, is that there is no discussion either on the facts or on the questions of law raised in the revision petition before the High Court and in the argument addressed during the time of hearing of the revision petition. With some regret, we are constrained to notice that the cryptic orders like the above, have not only been passed in the present appeals, but identical orders had even been passed by the High Court in a large number of cases from which the appeals have been preferred before this court. Identical orders, though in different revision petitions dealing with different facts, parties and questions of law, running into four lines, like the present one, have been passed, even without variation of a coma or a full stop....