TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, 104, and W.P.(T) No. 107 of 2012, involve common facts as well as one and the same question of law, require to be decided by common order. 2. As all the facts are common, the facts and documents referred in the first petition i.e. W.P.(T) No. 79/2012, are being taken for consideration. The petitioners are engaged in business of Tendu leaves. A tender was floated by the respondent No. 1/Federation for advance sale of Tendu Leaves for collection season 2012. The petitioners submitted their offer which was accepted and communicated to the petitioners by the respondent No. 1 on 16.012012 (Annexure P/1). The petitioners executed a purchase agreement with the respondent No. 1/Federation. Payment for each lot, as per the conditions contained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Forest Rights Act, 2006'), it has been defined as "non timber forest produce including Tendu Leaves". Shri Dubey further submits that in Schedule II part III (Annexure P/11), Tendu Leaves is mentioned at serial No. 5, however, no rate of tax is mentioned in column (3) thereof. In column (4), rate of 25% is mentioned under section 8(ii), however, in the Act, 2005, there is no section 8(ii), as it was omitted in 2006. 4. It is further urged that the petitioners are not liable to pay 25% tax on purchase of Tendu Leaves, but only 5% under notification dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure - P/5). 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Advocate General appearing with Shri Pankaj Shriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled to exemption under the exemption notification dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure P/4). Shri Agrawal would further submit that the contention of the petitioner that under the Policy, 2001, and the Act, 2006, the minor forest produce has been defined as "non timber forest produce including tendu leaves", therefore the Tendu Leaves cannot be taxed at the rate of more than 5%, is fallacious and without substance, because under no circumstances, when there are separate entries in Schedule II for forest produce and there is a separate entry for Tendu leaves, taxable at the rate of 25%, it cannot be said that the Tendu Leaves, being a minor forest produce, is entitled to benefit of exemption. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was no change in the rate of tax as prescribed in the Schedule II. The same rate of tax, which was provided in column No. 4 was renumbered by Amendment Act and was brought under column No. 3 in accordance with the requirement of section 8 of the Act, 2005. The Act was amended by the State Legislature. Thus, it cannot be held that proper procedure for notification as prescribed under section 15A of the Act, 2005 was not followed and, as such, the same is vitiated. There is also no pleadings to that effect except oral submission, as aforestated, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, on both counts this contention of the petitioners is noticed to be rejected. If the power to amend Schedule II has been conferred upon the State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "oil seeds" specified in section 14(vi) of the Central Sales tax act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956), entry No. 51 Toddy, Neera and Ark would reveal that although they are the forest produces but since for tax purpose, a specific entry entries have been made in Schedule I of Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005 by which these products although being the minor forest produce, have been exempted from taxation by making separate specific entries." 11. Clause 4.5 of the Policy, 2001, defines minor forest produce as under: "4.5 Conservation of Minor Forest Products (MFP) Non timber forest produce called the Minor Forest Products or MFP like Tendu leaves, Sal seed, imli, Chironji, Kullu and Dhawra gum, Kosa cocoon, Honey etc....." 12. Minor forest....