2011 (12) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Commercial Taxes), dated February 7, 1995 in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, the first respondent has set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and restored the order of the assessing officer. 2.1. The assessee was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi, on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,62,233 and Rs. 5,62,233, respectively for the year 1992-93 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing officer assessed the turnover of Rs. 1,73,190 relating to sales of text books, rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption, observing that the goods sold by the dealer are printed materials and not reading books. 2.2. Aggrieved against the said order of the assessing office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsideration to the issue involved in this case. 6. As stated above, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), while reversing the order of the assessing officer, has given a factual finding to the effect that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is a dealer, with the following operative portion: "5.....The notification does not restrict the exemption to a class of people like publishers, retail sellers. But, it is applicable to sales by 'any dealer'. Thus, the exemption has a wider meaning. Admittedly, the appellants are 'dealers'. They have sold reading books. Therefore, it is held that the appellants are eligible for exemption as per the abovesaid notification." 7. The notification issued in G.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eting item 22 of the Schedule to the notification which states "22. Sales of reading books including text books by any dealer", it was held that assessee therein was not entitled to exemption. The said decision has been differentiated by a subsequent Division Bench in Kannan Art Calenders v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 128 STC 498 (Mad) with the following observation (page 506 in 128 STC): "11. Before we close, we have to take the stock of the decision in Papco Offset Printing case [2000] 118 STC 160 (Mad). We must hasten to add that the learned judges therein were not called upon to decide the question as to whether the alphabet chart could be said to be a 'book'. In fact, that question was never argued before the learned judges ....