2007 (2) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer, Ward II A-Circle, Jodhpur dated 16.5.1994 and in view of the subsequent order passed by this Court in Review Petition No.184/95 (defect case) dated 21.4.1999 which was passed by this Court after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.773/1995 by the Hon'ble Apex Court by which the revenue challenged the judgment of this Court dated 16.5.1994 delivered in the case of S.B.Civil Sales Tax Revision No.447/93. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer of spacts, glasses and frames. A question arose before this Court in assessee's Sales Tax Revision No.447/93 whether by preparing spects from the glasses and frames, any different commodity comes in existence and that new product, is liable to be taxed under the Rajasthan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayment of tax. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 26.8.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No.773/995 recorded this fact also that at that time, the learned counsel for the revenue stated that he will not urge his contention, obviously before the Supreme Court, which goes contrary to the fact recorded in the judgment of the High Court dated 16.5.1994 as it could not have been raised in appeal without submitting review petition before the same court. It appears that a review petition was also submitted before this Court which was registered as S.B.Civil Review Petition No.184/95(Def.). In the review, it was submitted that it was never admitted by the revenue that the sale of glasses and the frames are exempted from tax under the provis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under impression on the basis of the judgment of this Court dated 16.5.1994 recording revenue's admission about the fact that frames and glasses are exempted from tax, therefore, the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Authority for assessing the tax on the sale of the frames and glasses which were sold after assembly by fixing glasses in the frames as one spect. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner vehemently submitted that in fact the assessee has already paid the tax on the frames and glasses and, therefore, there is no reason for remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that in the assessment order itself there is mention that all the frames and gla....