Disposed

Acto Ward I Circle a Sriganganagar v. M/S Chanan Ram Satpal Sriganganagar

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2021CR/298/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coordinate Bench observed that the nature of yarn sold was a question of fact requiring investigation. The Court disposed of three connected civil revision petitions with similar directions to set aside lower court orders and remand the matter to the Assessing Authority.

What did the court decide?

Revisions disposed of; orders of lower courts set aside; matter remanded to Assessing Authority to record evidence on the category of yarn sold.

Acto Ward I Circle a Sriganganagar Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 564/2005

¶3

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37, Public Park, Sriganganagar.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 297/2005

¶10

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37, Public Park, Sriganganagar.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 298/2005

¶16

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward – I, Circle – A, Sriganganagar.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

Chanan Ram Satpal, 36-37B, Public Park, Sriganganagar.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Sunil Bhandari.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	J.S. Bhaleria for
	Mr.	K.S. Yadav.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶23

Order

¶24

19/01/2021

¶25

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:-

¶26

(2 of 2)

¶27

[CR-564/2005]

¶28

“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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Authorities.”

¶32

In view of the submissions made, the present revision

¶33

petitions are also disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the above case.

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

80-82-pradeep/-

Acto Ward I Circle a Sriganganagar v. M/S Chanan Ram Satpal Sriganganagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acto Ward I Circle a Sriganganagar v. M/S Chanan Ram Satpal Sriganganagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhabhoot Mal Vs Kanhiya Lal and Ors.

Mohd Ayub Vs Abdul Wahid

Lrs.of Abhay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanyogita Vs Rohit Modi

Acto,W-I, Cir.-a, Sriganganagar Vs M/S Chanan Ram Satpal

M/S Super Drillers Vs a.C.T.O., Ward-v