Dismissed

M/S Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2022STR/10/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple sales tax revision appeals filed by the same petitioner against orders by the Rajasthan Tax Board. The High Court held that the argument relying on a subsequent notification to interpret the term 'edible oil' in an earlier notification was untenable.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed at the stage of admission as they were found devoid of merit.

M/S Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 10/2022

¶3

M/s Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd., L-37, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Raod, Jaipur. Now Merged With As Per Order Dated 08.10.2021 M/s Ready Roti India Pvt Ltd. Having Its Regd. Office At F-28 RIICO Industrial Area, Sarekhurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-VII Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 8/2022

----Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-Vii Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 9/2022

----Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-Vii Jaipur.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 11/2022

¶21

M/s Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd., L-37, Income Tax Colony,

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[STR-10/2022]

¶24

Tonk Raod, Jaipur. Now Merged With As Per Order Dated 08.10.2021 M/s Ready Roti India Pvt Ltd. Having Its Regd. Office At F-28 RIICO Industrial Area, Sarekhurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶25

----Petitioner

¶26

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-Vii Jaipur.

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 12/2022

¶29

M/s Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd., - L-37, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Raod, Jaipur. Now Merged With As Per Order Dated 08.10.2021 M/s Ready Roti India Pvt Ltd. Having Its Regd. Office At F-28 RIICO Industrial Area, Sarekhurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-Vii Jaipur.

¶32

----Respondent

¶33

D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 13/2022

¶34

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-Vii Jaipur.

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Adv.

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

(3 of 4)

[STR-10/2022]

21/02/2022

Since all these appeals pertain to the common notification, hence all are being decided by this common order. 2. These sales tax revisions have been moved by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 20.09.2021.

¶45

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in notification dated 08.03.2006 in the description of goods, following entry was made:

¶46

“Oilseed (excluding Til)’ and edible oil for manufacturing or refining.”

¶47

It is contended that a subsequent notification was issued on 14.07.2014 in which the entry reads as under:-

¶48

“Oilseed (excluding Til)’ for oil extraction/refining and crude/degum oil for refining”.

¶49

It is contended that the entry of 2006 was ambiguous and Assessing Authority has erred in imposing tax @ 1% on the assessee.

¶50

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of M/s Pappu Sweets and Biscuits etc. Vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. (Civil Appeal No. 9282 of 1995), decided by the Tax Board on 06.10.1998.

¶51

We have considered the contentions.

¶52

As per the record, it is evident that the present petitioner is involved in manufacturing of breads, pizzas and other items and edible oil is being imported for manufacturing of these products. From a plain reading of the notification dated 08.03.2006, it is apparent that edible oil for manufacturing is taxable @ 1%. The argument that subsequent notification can be

¶53

(4 of 4)

¶54

[STR-10/2022]

¶55

looked into for proper interpretation of the words in the earlier notification as do not have any force as the subsequent notification pertains to oilseed only, whereas the earlier notification was pertaining to oilseed as well as edible oil. Therefore, the subsequent notification which was issued after the assessment of the petitioner can not be looked into.

¶56

We therefore, do not find any question of law being involved in this case and the appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶57

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶58

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶59

PRAVESH/12, 70, 71, 72, 73 & 74

M/S Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Harvest Gold Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

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

Union of India Vs Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri Nemichand

Balkishan S/O Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevanram S/O Nanagram B/C Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

Maan Singh S/O Jai Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Omparkash S/O Shri Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan