TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them to Dandeli in Karnataka State, for use in the manufacture of paper. It was found from D7 records that for the period from March 9, 1985 to March 31, 1985, the assessee had purchased casuarina wood to the extent of Rs. 1,82,848. The assessing authority treated the said turnover as actual suppression and made an equal addition by way of estimation. He also proposed penalty at 1½ times the actual tax. 2.. Similarly for the assessment year 1986-87, it was found that the assessee had purchased casuarina wood barked in 60 c.m. length from agriculturists and transported them to their head office at Dandeli. He, therefore, held that such purchases were liable to be taxed under section 7-A(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upheld the order of the assessing authority and held that the goods cannot be treated as firewood. 4.. The appeals to the second Appellate Tribunal for both the assessment years, were taken up together and disposed of on April 24, 1990. The Appellate Tribunal has gone into the question of the applicability of section 7-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 and held in favour of the Revenue. So far as the exemption claimed in respect of the casuarina wood, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contentions in the following words: "The casuarina poles purchased with specification of particular size (barked in 60 c.m. length) and for the specific use in the manufacture of paper cannot be treated as firewood. It is seen that casuarina poles barked in 60 c.m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Consequently, Mr. Inbarajan says that casuarina purchased for whatever purpose by an assessee has to be treated only as firewood and therefore, eligible for exemption under the notification cited above. 6.. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on [1979] 43 STC 435 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v. Marwah & Co.). That is no doubt a direct case. The only difference is that in that case, the assessee was a dealer in fuel wood. He purchased fuel wood from various persons. When he supplied the wood purchased to the paper mills for manufacture of paper, the assessing authority treated the wood as pulp wood and not as firewood. The first appellate authority treated the wood sold as firewood and not as timber. On revision, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants to be naturalists or geologists or botanists' ." They also observed that "user test" is logical and not conclusive. The particular use to which an article can be applied in the hands of a special consumer, is not determinative of the nature of the goods. Mr. N. Inbarajan relies upon the above observation. But, it has to be noticed that the Supreme Court was only considering the use to which a particular hypothetical consumer could put to. They were not considering a case of a purchase by an actual consumer as raw material for manufacturing paper. This aspect of the case has been more explained in certain judgments of the Madras High Court. 8.. In [1982] 51 STC 353 (Mad.) (K.S. Vasan and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu), the assessee was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is commonly used by the weaker section of the community. Therefore, we have to find out whether the wood involved in this case were purchased as firewood for the purpose of fuel and consequently, exempt under the Government notification. If we look at from this angle, there is no escape from the conclusion that these goods were purchased only for use in the paper industry. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant the said exemption to the case before us, because admittedly, the goods were purchased for use in the paper industry. If there had been no evidence one way or the other, we might have adopted the common parlance theory that casuarina is normally used only as firewood. Inasmuch as there is clear evidence that casuarina was purchase....