Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 438 (MP)

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Janta Cycle Stores

1985-11-02

B.M.LAL, J.S.VERMA

body1985
JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS reference under Section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax has been made to decide the following questions of law, namely : (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cycles would be covered by the term tandem cycles used in Government Notification No. 1097/537/v-ST dated 7th April, 1967 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the goods exempted partly from tax under Notification No. 1097/537/v-ST dated 7th April, 1967, are only spare parts and accessories of bicycles, etc. , and not the bicycles, tandem cycles and cycle combinations by themselves ? ( 2. ) THE period of assessment is the calendar year 1975. The dealer carries on the business in cycles, spare parts, tyres and tubes. During the relevant period, the taxable turnover of the dealer was determined at Rs. 3,12,400 as a result of a best judgment assessment and it was taxed at the rate of 8 per cent. The dealers contention that it was liable to be taxed only at the rate of 7 per cent and not 8 per cent was rejected. The dealers first appeal was also rejected by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. However, further appeal of the dealer has been allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this reference has been made, at the instance of the department, to answer the above-quoted questions of law. ( 3. ) THE main point urged is that "tandem cycles" are not the same as cycles or bicycles. However, according to the Tribunal, the expression "tandem cycles" would cover all cycles and not merely one category thereof. No infirmity in this conclusion of the Tribunal has been shown which is the basis for the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. This being so, there is nothing to indicate that the Tribunals decision of the aforesaid questions was not justified. ( 4. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the reference is answered against the department and in favour of the dealer by holding that the Tribunal was justified in the view it has taken on both the aforesaid questions. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.