BACHHA TEWARI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER WEST MIDNAPORE DIVISION
LAWS(CAL)-1963-2-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 25,1963

BACHHA TEWARI Appellant
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, WEST MIDNAPORE DIVISION Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BACHULAL SAH VS. GITA TIMBER CO [LAWS(ORI)-1995-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHU RAM ATAM PARKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1974-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. TITAGHVR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LTD:MANGALJI MULJI KHARA [LAWS(SC)-1985-3-6] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAJANI TIMBER TRADERS [LAWS(ORI)-1974-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPASINDHU SAHU AND SONS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1974-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SAHACHARI UDHYOG MANDIR [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-4-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.N.Banerjee, J. - (1.)A three-fold grievance was made in this Rule by Mr. B. K. Panda, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He contended, in the first place, that the petitioner purchased standing timber and the Authorities should not have taxed standing timber under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, because standing timber is not goods but immovable property. It must be stated in fairness to Mr. Panda that he did not ultimately press this point. Mr. Panda contended, in the next place, that the petitioner merely chopped the timber into firewood but chopped firewood was not manufactured goods. Since the petitioner's gross turnover did not exceed rupees ten thousand he was not liable to pay, sales tax on the turnover. This argument is misconceived. Manufacturing process means to bring into being a commercial article for sale in the business in which the dealer is engaged, i.e., article which by itself has a commercial value and which can be the subject-matter of sale for a price in course of the business of selling or supplying in which the dealer is engaged. There is no reason to exclude the chopping of timber into firewood from the ambit of manufacturing process. If firewood is a manufactured article, then the second branch of the argument of Mr. Panda must fail.
(2.)The last argument advanced by Mr. Panda was that the petitioner was at first taxed on timber and again taxed on firewood. This, be concluded, amounted to a double taxation which must not be allowed to remain. This argument is not very well conceived. The petitioner was no doubt taxed on timber. After he manufactured firewood from timber, there was no reason to escape assessment on the manufactured commodity.
(3.)All the three arguments made by Mr. Panda fail and this Rule is discharged. I, however, make no order as to costs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.