PAUL ELECTRIC COMPANY Vs. ASSISTANT EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER INSPECTION
LAWS(P&H)-1980-1-14
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 08,1980

PAUL ELECTRIC COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER INSPECTION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE substantial question of law which arises in this set of five cases (C. W. P. Nos. 3680, 3768, 3843, 3926 and 3945 of 1979) is whether a monoblock centrifugal pump would be an agricultural implement within the meaning of Clause 10 of item 34-D of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), and as such exempt from sales tax being a tax-free goods.
(2.) THE petitioners carry on the business for the purchase and sale of pumping sets and other agricultural implements. They also deal in sale and purchase of monoblock centrifugal pumping sets. Before 15th April, 1971, item 34 of Schedule B to the Act was as under : Agricultural implements. Thereafter, amendment was made in item 34 by notification dated 15th April, 1971, and the amended item 34 is as follows : "34. Agricultural implements and parts thereof as per details below : A. Ordinary agricultural implements. 1. Hand hoe or khurpa. 5. Hand-wheel hoe. 2. Sickle. * *
(3.) SPADE. up to 23;


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