2007 (5) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e meaning of various notifications issued by the State of U.P. under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is the question involved in this case. 3. Appellants herein are dealers in crushed bones as also crushed horn and hoof. It is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act as also the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 4. Horn and hoof, on the one hand, and bone or crushed bones, on the other, used to be treated differently by the State. In a notification issued by the State on or about 7-9-1981, 'bones' were subjected to sales tax at the rate of 6%; the taxing event being sale to the consumer. By a notification dated 30-9-1982, it was declared that no tax was to be paid on sale or purchase of bones but the same did not include crushed bones. The said notificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purview of the taxing statute would be allowed to operate. In any event, such a question must be determined having regard to the expert opinion in the field. We have noticed hereinabove the different between 'bone meal' and 'crushed bone'. Different utilities of the said items has also been noticed by the Allahabad High Court itself. The High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal did not have the advantage of opinion of the expert to the effect as to whether crushed bones can be used only for the purpose of fertilizer or whether crashed bones are sold to the farmers for use thereof only as fertilizer." The said question was left open for subsequent cases. 6. In one of the cases, namely, Commissioner, Trade Tax. U.P. Lucknow v. M/s. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Horns and Hoofs as fertilizer. In the case of M/s. Hindustan Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax re ported in 2005 UPTC 885 this Court held that crushed bone is not a fertilizer. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal is liable to be allowed." 8. Following the said judgment, the High Court refused to interfere with the direction of the Tribunal for pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed amount of tax in the cases involving the other two appeals before us. 9. Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that crushed horn and hoof being neither bone nor crushed bone, despi....