S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under sec. 15 (2) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act') read with sec. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to 'the Central Sales Tax Act') for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (in short 'the Board') to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated October 25, 1978, passed in Special Appeal, which it refused to do by its order dated April 20, 1979. The question proposed by the A. C. T. O. is as under:- "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under sec. 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, although the goods imported on the strength of 'c forms for the purpose of use in manufacture was utilized in job-work. " Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in view of the provisions contained in sec. 13 (10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 which has come into force from May 1, 1985, the petition by the A. C. T. O is to be treated as a revision against the impugned orders of the Board and has to be disposed of as revision in accordance with S. 15 of the Act, as substituted by the aforesaid Amendment Act, 1984.
(2.) NON-petitioner No. l (M/s. Makrana Marble and Stone Co. Makrana, District Nagaur) is the dealer assee (partnership firm) and carries on business of processing marble stones belonging to their customers. It purchased and imported into Rajasthan diesel and mobil oil costing Rs. 27,750/- in the course of inter-state trade by paying central sales tax at the concessional rate by furnishing declaration in 'c forms. The diesel and mobil oil were utilized in processing marble stones, which belonged to other persons on job work basis. The consessional rate of central sales tax was allowed, under sec. 8 (l) (b) read with sec. 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the assessee had furnished declaration for oil used by him in the manufacture or processing of the goods for sale. The A. C. T. O. imposed a penally of Rs. 1600/- under sec. 10a (1) read with sec. 10 (d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, by his order dated October 6, 1967 on the ground that oil purchased by it was utilized in processing the goods belonging to others and were not in fact to be sold by it, but in fact were redelivered to its customers, who were the real owners of the marble stones processed by it on the basis of the job-work. The dealer-assessee went in appeal and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, vide his order dated October 30, 1967, dismissed the appeal. He held that as the oil imported by the dealer assessee was utilised in processing the marble stones, which were not sold by it, the imposition of penalty was justified. The dealer-assessee filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. A Single Bench of the Board accepted the revision by its order dated December 27,1977. It resulted in the deletion of the penalty, imposed on the dealer-assessee, The A C. T. O. filed a special appeal before the Division Bench of the Board, which was dismissed by its order dated October 25, 1978. On behalf of the petitioner (A. C. T. O. ). reliance was paced on C. I. Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. the Assessing Authority (l) the dealer-aseessee relied on Navsari Cotton Silk Mill Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (2) and Empire Dyeing and Mfg. Com. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (3), and according to it, the oil imported by the assessee was utilized by it in processing the marble stones. A petition under sec. 15 ( 1) of the Act was filed before it, which was dismissed, Hence, this petition under sec. 15 (2) (b) of the Act, which has now been heard as a revision. The only question of law that arises out of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Board in special appeal, is whether the penalty imposed under sec. 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act, although the goods were imported on the strength of 'c' Forms for the purpose of use in manufacture having been utilized in job-work, was justified and the Board erred in law in setting it aside. In Assessing Authority Vs. East Mfg. Co. Ltd. (4), a similar question, India with which we are concerned, arose before the Supreme Court. While affirming East India Cotton Mfg. Co. 's case (l), and over-ruling Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Ltd's case (2), their Lordships held that even if the assessee carried out the work of sizing, bleaching and dyeing of textiles for a third party on job contract basis, its case would be covered by the terms of the second sub clause of sec. 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act provided that the textiles a sized, bleached and dyed by the assessee were intended for sale by the third party. It was observed: "if it is proved in any proceedings initiated under section 10 (d) or section 10a that the textiles sized, bleached or dyed by the assessee for a third party on job-contract basis were not intended for sale by such third party, as would be evident if such textiles were in fact not sold by the third party but were used for its own purposes, the assessee would incur the penalty prescribed in those sections. " While respectfully following Assesing Authoritys case (4), we are of opinion that no penalty could be imposed under sec. 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act on the dealer-assessee although diesal and mobil oil were imported on the strength of 'c' forms and were utitized in processing marble stanes which belonged to other persons on job-work basis. In view of the aforesaid autharative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it is not necessary to notice other authoritative or to make further probe in the matter.
(3.) THE Board of Revenue, in its order dated October 25, 1978 passed in special appeal in our opinion, was right and justified in coming to the conclusion that the penalty was not imposable under sec. 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the goods were imported on the strength of 'c' form. The petition under s. 15 (2) (b) of the Act heard as revision is dismissed without any order as to costs. .;