TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (6) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short, "the CST Act") by the first respondent on different dates. The turnover mentioned by the petitioners represent the sales of granite to dealers in the State and others in form "H" issued under the provisions of the CST Act and the Rules made thereunder. Assessment was made. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner suo motu issued the notices reopening the assessments for disallowing exemption allowed by the first respondent on the turnover and called the petitioners to file their objections. The petitioners filed their objections and the Deputy Commissioner revised the order. In all the writ petitions except W.P. No. 27830 of 1996 the revisional orders were challenged by way of appeals. While the appeals were pending stay was sought. Stay a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....da for Rs. 20,00,250 (Bill Nos. 2/30-08-92, 3/30-11-92, 4/30-11-92 and 8/92-93 dated March 30, 1993) which are said to be meant for export purpose. This turnover was proposed to be deducted under the CST Act. In all other cases the assessees had sold rough granite stones to the registered dealers in this State, and the assessees are not the last sellers in the State." During the departmental enquiries it was revealed that they purchased rough granite and polished the same, cut them in sizes and then sold them to the foreign countries. From the observation of the assessing officer and from the enquiries it becomes clear that the petitioners had sold rough granite which was polished and cut into different sizes and then exported. 4.. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chips. This distinction is farfetched. 5.. Many authorities have been cited to show that rough granite stone and the polished granite stone are one and the same commodity. The authorities quoted are Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd. [2000] 118 STC 287 (SC), Poonam Stone Processing Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga [1994] 94 STC 183 (Kar) and State of Tamil Nadu v. O.P. Aliyar [1992] 87 STC 339 (Mad.). We do not want to deal with the judgments in detail in view of the fact that entries 32 and 92 are clear and unambiguous. The Legislature has thought it fit to distinguish the rough granite stone from the polished granite stone. The cases which have been cited are those ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he "stones" and "stone ballast" therefore the Supreme Court found that by grinding the stone boulders into chips the commodity remained the same for the purpose of sales tax, but in the present case there are two different entries available for raw granite stone and polished granite stone and what the petitioners sold was the raw granite stone and it was exported by a export unit after polishing and cutting. The export unit did not sell the rough granite as they purchased but they sold it after polishing and cutting. 6.. The present case is almost similar to the case in K.A.K. Anwar & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1998] 108 STC 258 (SC); (1998) 26 APSTJ 64. This was a matter of raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins. The entries tha....