TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of purchases of gold which was used in the manufacture of mangalsutra, when the mangalsutra is covered by Schedule entry A30 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, though subsequently referred in rule 42-I with notification dated May 1, 1992?" The facts The statement of facts reveals that the applicant-assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of gold and silver ornaments at Sangli. Amongst others, one of the items manufactured was "mangalsutra made of gold", which was sold at a price below Rs. 3,000. No tax was payable on the sale of mangalsutra, since it was covered by entry 30 of Schedule A appended to the Bombay Sales ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not taxable. The applicant objected to the contention seeking reduction of set-off on the ground that rule 42-I contending that set-off was admissible with effect from May 1, 1992 in view of amendment even though sale of mangalsutra, which was exempted since the amendment dated May 1, 1992 did not delete the words "for any period" appearing in rule 42-I. It was, thus, urged that though the assessment was for the period from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 and the amendment was subsequent thereto, i.e., with effect from May 1, 1992, even then the expression appearing in rule 42-I "for any period" will qualify the period under assessment, i.e., 1990-91. After having heard the parties, the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y granted to the applicant-assessee as the gold used in the manufacture of mangalsutra was purchased and used by the applicant much before the date of amendment. That mangalsutra being tax-free, set-off under rule 42-I was not admissible. That Notification No. STR-1192/CR49A, Taxation-1 dated May 1, 1992 itself indicates that all the amendments inserted by this notification were to operate prospectively, i.e., with effect from May 1, 1992. According to him, the words "for any period" in rule 42-I of the BST Rules do not add any relevance to the mangalsutra, which for the first time came on the scene vide notification dated May 1, 1992. Mr. Sonpal submits that the assessment period involved in the present case is 1990-91. That the set-off u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e,- (a) in the manufacture of taxable goods for sale, which manufactured goods have in fact been sold by him; . . ." The original Schedule A, entry 30 appended to the BST Act, operative between August 11, 1988 to September 30, 1995 was as under: "30. Mangalsutra with black glass beads sold at a price not exceeding three thousand rupees each." The above rule was subsequently amended vide Government notification dated May 1, 1992 and sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of rule 42-I was substituted as under: "(a) in the manufacture of mangalsutra covered by entry 30 of Schedule A or taxable goods for sale, which manufactured goods have in fact been sold by him;" With the above amendment, the mangalsutra was brought under the above clause, so a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n clause (i), in sub-clause (a), after the words 'in the manufacture of', the words, figures and letters 'Mangalsutra covered by entry 30 of Schedule A of' shall be inserted." If one turns to the above notification, it is not in dispute that the object of the Legislature was to amend the rule with a view to add amended subclause (a) with effect from May 1, 1992. It is, no doubt, true that sub-clause (a) nowhere says that it has a retrospective effect, but at the same time, while making the amendment, the words "for any period" have not been deleted from rule 42-I of the BST Rules. Now, some meaning will have to be assigned to the words "for any period". It will also be necessary to consider whether it has any relevance to t....