COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX MADHYA PRADESH v. IRFAN AND COMPANY
1988-07-06
G.G.SOHANI, K.M.AGARWAL
body1988
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : K. M. AGARWAL, J. This is a reference under section 44 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, at the instance of the department. The Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law to this Court for decision : " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the consideration paid by the dealer to the Forest Department was in lieu of the sale of mahul patta to the dealer and not as licence fees as contended by the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no manufacturing process is involved in the packing of mahul patta and as such no new commodity has come into existence which can be subjected to tax ?" 2. The assessee, M/s. Irfan and Co. carried on business in mahul leaves. During the assessment period March 9, 1977 to December 31, 1977 and January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978, the assessee had taken contracts for collection of mahul leaves from the Forest Department of the State Government and after collecting them, it had sold them outside the State or had effected inter-State sales. It claimed exemption from payment of Central sales tax on the basis of a notification issued by the State Government under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, by contending that it had purchased the mahul leaves after payment of full sales tax to the Forest Department and, therefore, they were tax-paid goods. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority as also by the first appellate authority but was upheld in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. The contention of the department that after packing, the mahul leaves become a different commodity from that purchased by the assessee from the Forest Department, and, therefore, the assessee was liable to sales tax on outside State and inter-State sales of mahul leaves in packed form, was also rejected in second appeal by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved the department applied for a reference and the Tribunal referred the aforesaid two questions of law for decision of this Court. 3.
Being aggrieved the department applied for a reference and the Tribunal referred the aforesaid two questions of law for decision of this Court. 3. It is not disputed that the Forest Department had realised sales tax from the assessee in respect of mahul leaves which were disposed of during outside the State and inter-State sales effected by the assessee. No sales tax is chargeable on a licence to collect mahul leaves or any other forest produce granted by the State. There is also no prohibition against sale of mahul leaves or any other forest produce to a person who had been granted a licence to collect mahul leaves or any other forest produce. The fact that sales tax in respect of mahul leaves was realised from the assessee by the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh leads to the only inference that the sale of such leaves was effected by the Forest Department in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the consideration paid by the dealer to the Forest Department was in lieu of sale of mahul patta to the dealer and not as licence fees as contended by the Revenue. 4. The utility or commercial value of mahul leaves does not increase or decrease with their packing. The leaves remain the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing process in packing of mahul leaves, or that with the packing of mahul leaves, any different commodity of any commercial value was brought into existence. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that no manufacturing process was involved in the packing of mahul patta and as such as new commodity had come into existence which could be subjected to tax. 5. In the result, both the questions referred to us are decided in favour of the assessee and against the department. 6. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative. .