Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order dated August 27, 1998 as passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Tax Board has dismissed its similar appeals preferred against the common order dated February 24, 1995 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur in the respective appeals preferred by the dealers. Having been preferred against the common order and involving a similar question, these revision petitions have been heard together; and are taken for disposal by this common order.
(2.) THE aspects relevant for determination of the question involved in the matter are that while making assessments for the financial year 1990 -91 in respect of the non -petitioners dealers, the assessing authority observed that certain handicrafts items were purchased by the dealers for re -sale under form ST -17 but were sold for the purpose of exports under form ST -17B and, on the opinion that the purchase on form ST -17 was not for exports, the assessing authority issued notice to the dealers as to why purchase tax be not imposed; and, for want of a plausible reply, the assessing authority proceeded to impose 10 per cent purchase tax and interest thereupon in the separate assessment orders dated June 1, 1994. The amount involved in that regard in relation to the non -petitioner, M/s. Bhawani Exports (CR No. 580 of 1999) had been 10 per cent tax on Rs.Nl,80,000, i.e., Rs. 18,000 and interest at Rs. 13,320; and that in relation to the non -petitioner, M/s. Bhawani Emporium (CR No. 581 of 1999) had been 10 per cent tax on Rs. 1,17,792, i.e., Rs. 11,779 and interest at Rs. 8,716. In the said assessment orders there had been certain other additions and impositions too but the same are not the subject -matter of these petitions. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders dated June 1, 1994, the dealers preferred respective appeals and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, proceeded to partly allow the same. So far the subject -matter of these two revision petitions is concerned, the learned appellate authority observed that under the provisions of Sections 5 and 5A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("the Act of 1954"), in the given circumstances, purchase tax could not be levied ; that the goods were purchased from the registered dealers as per the notification dated December 1, 1986 and were sold within the State to the exporters ; the purchasers of the dealers were the exporters who were entitled to purchase the goods from the registered dealers in the State without paying the tax. In such a legal position, the purchase tax, according to the appellate authority, could not have been levied on the dealers. It was also observed that as per the first proviso to Section 5A of the Act of 1954, if the goods were used for the declared purposes, purchase tax could not be levied. The appellate authority, therefore, proceeded to set aside the levy of purchase tax and the related component of interest while partly allowing the appeals by the common order dated February 24, 1995.
(3.) IN the appeals taken to the Tax Board by the Revenue against the common order aforesaid, on behalf of the dealers was referred a decision of this Court in CWP No. 1650 of 1993 in the context of the Notification No. F.4(8) FD/Gr.IV/94 -51 as issued by the Finance Department on March 7, 1994. The learned Member of the Tax Board proceeded to observe that under form ST -17B the goods were sold for export; and before export, it had been inter -State sale but there was no tax liability in the dealers in view of the said notification dated March 7, 1994 (that has been mentioned as notification dated March 7, 1990 in the impugned order but its correct date, admittedly, is March 7, 1994).;