2021 (5) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndia is exigible to tax @4% or @8% as held by the Tribunal? 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act). It owns a rice mill and it is carrying on the business of purchasing paddy and converting it into rice. In terms of the Government guidelines, the Petitioner was required to procure paddy at a specified rate and sell a specified percentage thereof to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) as levy rice. In terms of the contract with the FCI, the Petitioner was required to sell the levy rice with its container i.e. gunny bags. The Petitioner accordingly paid sales tax at the rate prescribed under Section 5 (1) of the OST Act. 4. The question that arose for conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Distillery v. State of Kerala [1991] 82 STC 71 (Ker) and Mcdowel & Co. v. State of Kerala [1995] 97 STC 479 (Ker) to urge that when the goods are sold in containers or sold after being packed in packing materials, the containers and the packing materials will have to be taxed at the same rate as the goods themselves. 8. Indeed the ratio of the above decisions supports the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner. In fact in Premium Breweries v. State of Kerala (supra), the Supreme Court did consider its earlier decision in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). Nevertheless, the facts of the case in Premium Breweries v. State of Kerala (supra) were such that the ratio of Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) was fou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent; 3. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed. 4. The packing is used for convenience of transport and the quantity of the goods as such is not dependent on packing; 5. The mere fact that the consideration for the packing is merged with the consideration for the product would not make the sale of packing an integrated part of the sale of the product." 10. In the considered view of the Court, in the present case the Tribunal was right in applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), and concluding that the question had to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department. Factually, since it has been shown by....