1998 (8) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n holding that there is no implied or express contract of sale in respect of gunny bags though attendant circumstances like invoicing for the contents and containers separately coupled with significant cost of gunny being charged to the buyer clearly establish express or implied contract of sale in respect of the gunny bags? 2.. The relevant assessment year is 1980-1981. The assessee is Food Corporation of India. The assessing officer included the cost of the gunny bags in the turnover and levied tax. Aggrieved by that the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the assessing officer against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... follows: "This amount related to sale of rice out of paddy purchased by the appellant and milled. The appellant has not given any ground on which it was entitled to exemption. It appears that the amount was shown in the appeal petition only to show that this rice was procured out of paddy which was subject-matter of the appeal in the earlier paragraph. The appellant was not entitled on this item as it was entitled only to reduction of tax on paddy out of the tax levied on rice. The appeal on this item is dismissed." From a reading of the order of the Tribunal we do not find what is the view of the Tribunal as it does not convey any meaning. Further, the main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that irrespective of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be set-off as against the tax payable on the rice. But the question is whether this Explanation can be extended to the paddy procured prior to September 7, 1976. In view of the judgment of this Court referred to above, viz., State of A.P. v. Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill Contractors Co. (1991) 12 APSTJ 124 wherein it was held that irrespective of the fact whether paddy is procured prior to September 7, 1976 or after September 7, 1976 it is entitled to the benefit of Explanation III to Third Schedule the assessee is eligible for this benefit of the Explanation. Further on a perusal of the order of the assessing officer, we find that there is no evidence that in fact tax was paid on the paddy procured prior to September 7, 1976. Therefore, we ....