ABDUL HAMID AND CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench has referred the following question of law for an authoritative pronouncement: - "whether in view of the notification dated 11-1-67 the general rate of tax chargeable on gota and kinari was 2% during the period commencing from 17th March 1963 to 14th April 1965 irrespective of the fact whether the dealer realised any tax from the customers or not".

(2.) THE Division Bench was hearing a special appeal under section 15 (4 A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act against an order of a Single Bench dated 20-8-71. THE facts of the case were that the assessee was a dealer in gota and kinari. THE Commercial Taxes Officer Sikar on testing his accounts book found that during the period of assessment i. e. , 1964-65, he deposited tax at the rate of 2% but the bills did not show this separately. He was taxed at the rate of 6%. THE dealer claimed the benefit of notification No. F. 5 (86) FD/gt/66 dated 11-1-67 and went in appeal THE learned Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bikaner held that the dealer was not entitled to the concession given in the notification. A revision preferred before a single Member of the Board was unsuccessful and hence the dealer went in special appeal.

(3.) SHRI Vinay Sogani, appearing on behalf of the dealer has drawn attention to Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which is the charging section. He says it has been specifically stated in the notification that the rate of tax during the disputed period will be 2% and not 5% and this was a direction made under section 5 of the Act. The intention of the Government was plainly that the tax on these goods during the relevant period would be 2%. This would not affect cases in which tax had been charged from the consumer at a higher rate, but all other cases would be covered. State of Rajasthan vs. Karim Bux Kasim, reported in 1967 Tax Reporter 42 has been cited in this connection This ruling is not of much relevance to the present case, nor is 1965 RRD 134 State vs. Murlidhar Shankarlal because in these two cases the point at issue was the charging of sales tax at concessional rates in respect of goods sold to Government departments. Here the basic question is whether a concessional rate of tax is attracted as a matter of course when no tax has been realised or shown to have been realised in the accounts maintained by the dealer.