K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) RAM Bharosi Lal Ramesh Chand was a partnership firm having four partners. Three of them retired. On their retirement, only one partner - -Munna Lal was left. He continued to carry on the business which was started by the firm in 1970 -71. He was allowed the benefit of Section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and forms S.T. 17A were issued to him. The assessing authority did not accept the claim being granted benefit of Section 5CC and levied the tax on the purchases of raw material amounting to Rs. 18,160 at 1 per cent being the difference between Section 5CC and 5C and also imposed the penalty under Section 16(1)(e).
(2.) THE said levy of tax and imposition of penalty were disputed by the assessee -Munna Lal in appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. The appeal was allowed on the finding that the unit being the same as it was when the exemption under Section 5CC was granted, Munna Lal was entitled to get the same. As a result whereof, the levy of tax and imposition of penalty were quashed. The department went in revision before the single Member of the Board of Revenue. The revision was dismissed. The findings of the learned single Member were against the Revenue. The relevant portion is given below : 'This matter had come up before me and I had held in 1980 RRD NUC 288 that the concession granted under Section 5CC read with the notification dated July 1, 1970, would be available to new units irrespective of change of ownership and the interpretation sought to be given by the department would defeat the very purpose for which the provision was made. In the present case, the complete ownership has also not changed and there is no reason any (it seems to be a typographic error for the word 'why') the concession should not be continued during the period prescribed in law.' Being dissatisfied with the findings, the assessing authority preferred D.B. appeal which was allowed and was decided in favour of the Revenue. The view of the Division Bench was that the assessee -respondent Vishambhar Dayal Munna Lal being a different legal entity from Ram Baroshi Lal Ramesh Chand, is not entitled as of right to exemption on sales to or purchases by it of any raw material for the manufacture of goods for sale within the State. The view further of the Division Bench was that the present respondent cannot be treated as 'new unit' for the purpose of Section 5CC.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment, the present revision has been preferred.;