COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX M P Vs. BHOPAL DAL AND FLOUR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the following three questions have been referred by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of this court :

(2.) THE facts, which are material for the disposal of this reference, may be briefly stated thus. The assessee is a registered dealer. It carries on business in food-grains, oil-seeds etc. , and manufactures and sells pulses. For the assessment period commencing from 16th November, 1963, to 3rd November, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhopal, assessed the assessee to a total tax of Rs. 11,718. 87 in the case of assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act and the assessee was assessed to a total tax of Rs. 12,962. 49 in the Central sales tax assessment case. The Assistant Commissioner imposed in both the cases a penalty of Rs. 1,500 under section 43 (1) of the Act on the finding that the returns of turnover submitted by the assessee were not correct and that he had failed to make the correct returns on the false ground that the pulses were exempt from tax. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, allowed an exemption of Rs. 70,000 on the sale of husk of pulses over and above the deduction which was allowed by the Sales Tax Officer. He thus reduced the tax liability of the assessee by Rs. 700. He further reduced the amount of penalty in both the cases to Rs. 750 in each case and maintained the assessment pertaining to the Central sales tax.

(3.) IT was further contended before the Board of Revenue that the sum of Rs. 1,52,836 representing the turnover arising out of sale in the course of its inter-State trade and commerce of tax paid goods should also be exempted from tax. The Board of Revenue accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons ([1965] 16 S. T. C. 231 (S. C. ). ). The Board of Revenue also concluded that the assessee was entitled to get exemption as his case fell within the general exemptions under section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act.