1997 (8) TMI 461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ept the contention. The assessment which was originally computed at 4 per cent was revised subsequently under section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the turnover of the musical bell was brought to tax liability at 15 per cent. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) successfully. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, State filed T.A. No. 351 of 1996 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) suo motu rectified the original order dated August 8, 1995 by a rectification order dated May 31, 1996 holding that the assessee will not get the benefit of exemption in respect of the turnover of musical door bell under S.R.O. N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication subsequently issued, musical door bell was included as an item. There was no justification for not including this item in S.R.O. No. 748/89. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, S.R.O. No. 748/89 has to be interpreted in such a manner that the concessional rate would apply to electronic musical door bell also. 3.. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka and also a decision of the Supreme Court in support of her contention. In M.P. Shoe House v. State of M.P. [1987] 67 STC 427 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had occasion to consider the question whether a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Government exempting from payment of sales tax, all s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e First Schedule attracting a rate of sales tax of 30 per cent, whereas all other ayurvedic medicinal preparations were shown under item No. 95 and were subjected to a lesser rate of tax. The court took the view that arishtams and asavas were ayurvedic medicinal preparations and there was no reason that they should be treated differently from the general class of ayurvedic medicines covered by item No. 95. 4.. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Under the notification which preceded S.R.O. No. 748/89 exemption was granted generally to all electronic goods manufactured within the State. But under S.R.O. No. 748/89 exemption was granted only in respect of selected items of electronic goods. There was no case that excep....