TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot agricultural machinery covered by entry 1, Part I of Schedule C but it was covered by entry 135, Part II of Schedule C to the BST Act as held by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai? The facts The relevant facts giving rise to the aforesaid substantial question of law can be stated in brief as under: The applicant is a manufacturer of bio-fertilizer equipment. The applicant has submitted the sale bills No. Mh/9798/ 001 dated March 15, 1998 and MH/9798/ 001/A dated 15th March, 1998 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of tax rate under section 52 of the BST Act. The applicant has claimed that the impugned sale is a sale of agricultural machinery and parts and hence exigible to tax at four per cent cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions will come in the ambit of agricultural machinery. According to him, even in common parlance the product is not recognized as an agricultural machinery because it is not associated with agricultural operations, but is viewed as a piece of general machinery and therefore, the product can more appropriately be classified under the Schedule entry 135, Part II of Schedule C. Being dissatisfied with the determination order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, being Appeal No. 28 of 2000 which was decided on December 6, 2003. The question raised before the Tribunal was: whether the impugned machinery falls in the Schedule entry 1, Part I Schedule C or entry 135, Part II of Schedule C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....electricity or any other power, and components, parts and accessories thereof but excluding machinery and components, parts and accessories thereof specified in any other entry in this Schedule. 13 per cent. Submissions Mr. Surte, the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submissions contended that the Tribunal failed to take cognizance of the affidavit dated October 3, 2003 filed by the partner of the firm in which he had stated that "Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., District Ahmednagar" owns around 175 acres of agricultural land and that the machine supplied to them was being used by them in their agricultural land for agricultural operations. The spent and sugarcane mud waste (press mud) derived from crushing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are sold to the sugar factories and not to the agriculturist directly. The tender notice issued by the Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., clearly specifies the "suppliers for composting technology" and the description of the machine is "mixing-cum-humanization machine in carrying out surface aerobic composting using press mud along with the other material". He pleaded that the purchaser was interested in purchase of composting technology and not soil treatment machine. Mr. Sonpal, therefore, contended that the learned Commissioner was correct in holding that the impugned machinery is not an agricultural machinery but a machinery falling under the Schedule entry 135, Part II of Schedule C liable to sales tax at 13 per cent. Conside....