1996 (4) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1988] 68 STC 324, laying down the proposition that the firewood could be assessed only as firewood at the rate of tax prevalent during the period or whether the situation would be governed by the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. C.R. Paul & Sons [1985] 59 STC 231 in regard to which, following the said decision in T.R.C. No. 8 of 1983 this Court by the judgment dated November 13, 1984, took the view that the assessee will not be entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of 1 per cent under entry No. 55 of the First Schedule which was, it is submitted, confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x. What was the position with regard to the factual matrix in T.R.C. No. 8 of 1983, although not floating on the surface of the judgment, the order of the Supreme Court makes it clear that although a question of fact, the manner in which the High Court has treated the matter and has come to its conclusion, concludes the matter beyond doubt. It has to be said therefore, as a consequence, that in both the situations there was no difficulty with regard to the factual basis as they edify for the consequential conclusion as to which of the articles would govern the situation of liability. 4.. Reading the orders of the three authorities we have this difficulty showing that the orders proceed on the presumption in the absence of the examination....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, in his order dated March 1, 1984 is not different in any way. 6.. In paragraph 7 it would be found that the process of surrendering judgment continues and the first appellate authority has considered the question in the following manner: "The turnover involved is Rs. 36,930.96. The assessing authority who examined this point had held that what the appellant had purchased was pulp wood for the manufacture of wood pulp and hence such purchases could only be treated as pulp wood and not as firewood. The learned counsel on the other hand would argue that the wood purchased by the appellant-company is known in common parlance as firewood coming under item No. 55 of the Fi....