This short order disposed of three connected civil revision petitions by following a direction from a previous coordinate bench that remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 564/2005
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37, Public Park, Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 297/2005
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37, Public Park, Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 298/2005
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37B, Public Park, Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Sunil Bhandari. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
J.S. Bhaleria for |
| Mr. | K.S. Yadav. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
19/01/2021
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present revision petitions is squarely covered by order of this Court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Chanan Ram Satpal: S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.1191/2002 decided on 24.02.2004, wherein, in case of the same assessee in relation to different assessment year, a Coordinate Bench of this Court interalia observed and directed as under:-
(2 of 2)
[CR-564/2005]
“Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that definition of “Knitting Yarn” and categorization of the man made yarn and knitting yarn have not been decided by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. The Tax Board on hypothetical proposition has considered the sold yarn to be one being not knitting yarn. It has been the same yarn to be used for waving etc. Thus, the Tax Board has reduced the tax liability under Clause 14 (a) which was an erroneous proposition because it is a question of fact. What was the ultimate use of yarn sold is a proposition which requires investigation.
Learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that end use of the yarn cannot be controlled by the seller. No specific evidence has been led in this regard. He wants opportunity to establish that the yearn was infact sold to the weavers. These are the questions of fact which go to the root of the matter.
Since the question has not been considered in right perspective to give any finding of fact about the nature of yarn. In that perspective the orders of the lower courts viz. Tax Board, Dy. Commissioner and Assessing Authority is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to give permission to the parties to led evidence to show that the yarn sold was of which category whether it was of weaving and knitting? After giving finding about the category of the yarn itself it will be judged as to how much tax is to be imposed.
In that view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Authorities.”
In view of the submissions made, the present revision
petitions are also disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the above case.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
80-82-pradeep/-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Chanan Ram SatpalFollowed¶25
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Chanan Ram Satpal: S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.1191/2002
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar
Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37, Public Park, Sriganganagar
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
