TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the cases are similar and law points involved are same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus: On December 6, 1986, the business premises of both the dealer-respondents were surveyed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion-111, Jaipur. It was noted that they purchased chassis and bodies without paying any tax, taking advantage of the Notification No. F.5(40) FDRT/63-2 dated March 23, 1963 for the purpose of the resale. They sold them after mounting the bodies on the chassis. Notice was issued to them to show cause as to why tax, interest and penalty may not be imposed for not paying tax on their purchase as the same were not separately sold. After hearing, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers for resale, without paying any tax, taking advantage of the Notification No. F.5(40) FDRT/63-2 dated March 23, 1963 (printed at serial No. 53 of J.K. Jain's book), bodies were fixed on the chassis by means of nuts and bolts and, thereafter, they were sold. The case of the department is that mounting the bodies on the chassis resulted in loss of their identities, different marketable commodity came into existence, the said process involved manufacturing process and as such the dealer-respondents were liable to pay purchase tax at the rate specified under section 5C of the Act on the purchase of bodies and chassis. The question for consideration is whether the mounting of the topper body on the chassis amounted to manufacture. It is not i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of power lenses in the frames did not involve any manufacturing process and tax was not attracted on the sale of spectacles as frame and lenses were exempted from payment of tax. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. Various notifications issued under section 5(1) notifying the rate of tax leviable on various goods indicate that the department itself has not treated a motor body mounted on a chassis as a different commodity from motor body and chassis. Item No. 7 of Notification No. F4(64) FD/Gr. IV/77-56 dated 6th September, 1977 (serial No. 369 of J.K. Jain's book) runs as under: "S.O. 83.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act No. 29 of 1954), and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 Motor bodies of all shapes and designs (including those of motor vans, motor tankers, motor caravans, motor trucks and motor buses) whether built on chassis or separately. 12 per cent. ............................." 8. S. No. 652: F.4(92)FD/Gr. IV/86-44 dated December 31, 1986 runs as under: "S.O. 162.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954), the State Government hereby notifies that with immediate effect the rate of tax payable by a dealer in respect of motor bodies of all shapes and designs (including those of motor vans, motor tankers, motor caravans, motor trucks and motor buses) whether built on chassis or sep....