K. C. AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 filed by the Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, Sri Ganganagar against the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal Ajmer in Sales Tax Appeal, No. 586/84 (14/85)/st/sriganganagar- M/s. Ganganagar Bottle Supply Company vs. Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer.
(2.) THE non-petitioner supplied empty bottles engraved with 'rajasthan Excise' to M/s. Ganganagar Sugar Mills after collecting the same from hawkers and casual traders. For the period 1. 4. 81 to 31. 3. 1982, it disclosed the sale of these bottles to the extent of Rs. 7,47,991. 60 and claimed exemption from payment of tax on the ground that they had already been subjected to tax. THE Assessing Authority turned down its request of exemption holding that S. 5 (1) of the Act applied and Rs. 2907. 16p was also imposed by way of interest for the late deposit of tax. THE appeal filed by the non-petitioner was rejected. Against the aforesaid orders and judgments, the non-petitioner filed a second appeal to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal on the ground that the bottles were admittedly taxable on the first point as the filled bottles were sold to various licencees, who in turn sold them to the consumers. The non-petitioner (Assesses) purchased the empty bottles from the hawkers and casual traders and sold them to M/s. Ganganagar Sugar Factory and, therefore, sales were not covered either by S. 5 of the Act or Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, It was claimed that no tax was assessable on the same. The second appeal filed by the non-petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 31st March 1987 holding that the bottles were taxable on the first point u/s. 5/ (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the series of successive sales was broken within the meaning of R. 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules since the licencees sold bottles to the consumers and, therefore, a new series of sale started and the assesses being the first registered dealer of the subsequent series of sale, was liable to pay tax. The submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is not correct. S. 5 (1) provides that the tax payable by the dealer under the Act shall be at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed. It is, thus clear that the tax has been imposed on the first sale made to M/s. Ganganagar Sugar Mills, Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the explanation appended to rules 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules and urged that the second series of sales stared after the sale of the liquor filled in the bottles by the licencees to the consumers, hence again tax was payable by the first registered dealer on their sale. This submission is not correct. If such an interpretation is accepted, it would result in multiple taxation of the same goods against the expressed provision of S. 5. The disputed bottles had been subjected to taxation in the hands of either their manufacturers or M/s. Ganganagar Sugar Factory and they could not be taxed in the hands of the non-petitioner when they came to their possession after they were purchased from casual traders or hawkers. S. 5 did not apply to such a sale. In G. Subramanya Reddy & Co. V. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Bangalore in similar circumstances, it was held that tax had been paid by the first dealer, no sales tax was payable on second hand bottles purchased by the non-petitioner from the hawkers in market and sold thereafter. That being so, I find no merit in this revision which deserves to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed with costs. . ;