PRINTERS INDIA LTD Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1952-12-28
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on December 17,1952

PRINTERS (INDIA) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This case comes before this Court on a reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 21 (3), Bihar Sales Tax Act of 1944. The assessee is an incorporated company called Messrs. Printers (India) Ltd. The assessee was assessed to sales-tax to the extent of Rs. 47,946/14/3 on a gross turnover of Rs. 30,68,601 for the year 1944-45 under the provisions of Section 10 (3), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The assessment was made on 31-3-1947. The assessee showed a gross turnover of Rs. 46,11,639/13/9. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 14,80,414/5/2 under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii). This was allowed by the Sales-tax Officer. The assessee also claimed a deduction of Rs. 31,29,994/2/9 under Section 5 (2) (a) (v) which states that the taxable turnover shall not include "sales of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been despatched by, or on behalf of, the dealer to an address outside Bihar". This claim of the assessee was disallowed by the sales tax Officer on 31-3-1947, on the ground that the sales having taken place within the limits of Bihar the deduction could not be validly granted. An appeal was preferred by the assessee and on 16-8-1947 the Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Sales-tax Officer. The Commissioner was of opinion that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction and the case was remanded so that the Sales-tax Officer may check the boobs of the assessee to find out if the goods were despatched outside Bihar. Against the order of the Commissioner an application was moved on behalf of the State of Bihar to the Board of Revenue. Meanwhile the Sales-tax Officer to whom the case had been remanded investigated the question whether the assessee was entitled to deduction and concluded that he was not so entitled. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. On 18-2-1948, the Commissioner summarily dismissed the appeal. An application in revision was moved on behalf of the assessee before the Board of Revenue. On 15-9-1948, the Board of Revenue jointly heard the applications made by the petitioner and also by the State of Bihar. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision application filed by the State of Bihar and set aside the order of Mr. Sahi, Commissioner, who passed the remand order on 16-8-1947. The Board of Revenue at the same time rejected the application filed by the assessee. In concluding portion of its judgment, the Board of Revenue states: "On due consideration of the matter, I think that another opportunity should be given to Messrs. Printers (India) Ltd. to produce evidence showing the amount of despatch from the Chandisthan and Monghyr made by them and Messrs Tobacco Manufacturers (India) Ltd., to places outside Bihar and to place their claim before the Sales Tax Officer for the purpose of a fresh hearing as to whether or not they are entitled to any deduction under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) or 5 (2) (a) (v) according to the principles laid down in Case No. 64 of 1948, referred to above. The order of the present Commissioner as well as his predecessor are set aside and the case remanded for further hearing according to the directions set forth above". In effect the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer to determine whether the assessee was entitled to any deduction from the gross turnover on the principle laid down by the Board of Revenue in its resolution in the previous 'case No. 64 of 1948.' At the instance of the assessee the High Court ordered the Board of Revenue to state a case under Section 21 (3), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944.
(2.) The question formulated by the High Court was "whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 30,68,601 out of the turnover under Section 5 (2) (a) (v) or under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944".
(3.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length we are of opinion that the question formulated should be altered in the following manner: "Whether the Board of Revenue, while remanding the case to the Sales Tax Officer for determining the validity of the assessee's claim to deduction under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) or under Section 5 (2) (a) (v) was correct in making the further direction that the Sales-tax Officer must act on the principle laid down by the Board of Revenue in previous case No. 64 of 1948".;


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