TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e framed for consideration: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the declarations in Form-IV, which were furnished by the purchasing dealers to the Petitioner, for purchase of logs, as manufacturers? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner has contravened either the 5th proviso to section 5(1) of the Act or entry 48 of the list 'C' of the Rate Chart?" 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner carries on business in the sale of timber, sal seeds, firewood and bamboo at Deogarh. It is registered as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act). 3. For the assessment year (AY) 1989-90 i.e., ending on 31st March, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) is distinguishable on facts. The said case did not concern sale of timber to saw mill manufacturers and proceeded on the basis that the timber whether sold as logs of wood or as rafters and beams etc. continued to remain as timber and that conversion of such timber into rafters and beams would not amount to 'manufacture'. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the same timber which has already suffered purchase tax as a single point taxable goods will not again attract tax at the point of subsequent sale after conversion into rafters and beams. 6. As regards issue (ii), Mr. Kar submitted that the Petitioner was not in a position to refuse the Form IV declarations furnished by the purchasers i.e., the saw mill manufacturers and had t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls manufacturers. He accordingly, supported the view taken by the Tribunal in the instant case. 9. The above submissions have been considered. As far as issue (i) is concerned, the Court notes that in the present case nothing has been brought on record to enable either the Tribunal or this Court to come to a conclusion that the saw mill manufacturers who purchased the logs of wood from the Petitioner did not subject the logs to manufacturing or processing. That was an enquiry that could have been undertaken by the Assessing Officer (AO)/Sales Tax Officer (STO). It was not incumbent on the selling dealer to enquire whether the saw mill manufacturer furnishing a declaration in Form IV was or was not entitled to avail of the concessional r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner as a selling dealer was in no position to come to such conclusion. 12. Further, the Department has no answer to the plea of the Petitioner that if it had declined to accept the Form IV furnished to it by the saw mill manufacturers, it may have been in violation of Section 9-B (3) of the OST Act. The Court enquired from Mr. Padhy whether any instructions were issued by the Department to the selling dealers in general asking them not to accept Form IV if it was either furnished by a saw mill manufacturer or anyone else whom the Department has ascertained not to be engaging in any activity of manufacturing or processing or even where the sale of goods is a first point sale? The answer was in the negative. 13. In the circumstance....