Dismissed

Asstt Commissioner Comm Bhiwad v. M/S Thapar Oil and Fats Ltd. Bhiw

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2016STR/538/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition challenging the order of the Tax Board regarding the tax levy on solvent extracted oil manufactured by the assessee. The court upheld the Tax Board's finding that the product remained edible oil despite the addition of hexene, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Asstt Commissioner Comm Bhiwad Vs M/S Thapar Oil and Fats Ltd. Bhiw — Rajasthan HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.538 of 2011 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER COMMN. BHIWADI (ALWAR) VERSUS

¶4

M/S. THAPAR OIL AND FATS LIMITED BHIWADI (ALWAR)

¶5

Date of order : 07.10.2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J.

¶7

Mr. Nikhil Simlote Adv., for petitioner.

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Instant revision petition at the instance of the revenue is directed against the order of the Tax Board dt.22.07.2003 dismissing the appeal of the revenue. It relates to the assessment year 1995-96.

¶10

Only dispute in the instant petition is about the Tax Board holding that the solvent extracted oil (SEO) manufactured and sold by the respondent-assessee was edible oil or not.

¶11

The brief facts noticed for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent-assessee purchased oil from the dealers out-side the State after paying due tax and manufactured solvent extracted oil (SEO) which was sold in the course of Inter State Trade and Commerce. The assessee thus, effected inter State turnover of solvent extracted oil (SEO) of Rs.5,85,79,060/- during the year 1995-96 after charging tax @ 1% as provided in the State Government Notification bearing S.No.5(17)F.D/C.T. /

¶12

¶13

169-3 dt. 01.04.1969. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention as “ hexene” was also added while producing the oil and accordingly held that it no more remains oil and after refining it becomes oil otherwise not. The Assessing Officer also held that assessee does not have refinery, therefore, the tax @ 3% was leviable.

¶14

On an appeal by the assessee before the Dy. Commissioner (A), the claim was reiterated and the Dy. Commissioner (A) accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed the appeal.

¶15

On a further appeal by the Revenue before the Tax Board also resulted into dismissal of the appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once “hexene” was added while manufacturing/producing of the oil, the commodities changed and therefore, the Assessing Officer was well justified in charging rate @ 3% which was applicable for the product of, hexene being added while manufacturing/re-producing of the oil and admittedly, the assessee did not have refinery of its own and the claim was merely made for lower rate of tax and accordingly, contended that question of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as well as the other material available on record.

¶18

¶19

In my view, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and both the Appellate Authorities have found as a finding of fact that even after adding hexene, it remain edible oil and it did not make any difference whether “hexene” would have been mixed in it or not. Both the Appellate Authorities have taken into consideration the Notification S.No.5(17) F.D/C.T. /169-3 dt. 01.04.1969 (supra) and have rightly held that only rate of 1% was chargeable which has been paid by the assessee and no case is made out for interference in the order of the Tax Board. It is basically a finding of fact on appreciation of Notification (supra) and material available on record and I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court.

¶20

Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶21

(JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA),J.

¶22

Raghu Sr. P.A.

Asstt Commissioner Comm Bhiwad v. M/S Thapar Oil and Fats Ltd. Bhiw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asstt Commissioner Comm Bhiwad v. M/S Thapar Oil and Fats Ltd. Bhiw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Narayan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Janu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Babu Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kayum Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chandkaur Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohan @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp