- (1.) THESE are two revision applications by the assessing authority against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated 23-2-66 in respect of assessment orders for the two periods 1-4-61 to 31-3-62 and 1-4-62 to 31-3 63, in the case of M/s Saifuddin Bros. , Udaipur.
(2.) THE grounds of revision are that (i) the Deputy Commissioner had wrongly treated ribbons and braids as exempt, and (ii) he had also wrongly treated bangles sold by the dealer as bangles made of Xylonite and exempt on that ground. THE departmental representative drew attention to the Board's DB decision dated 31-7-68 in Revision No. 94/67 Sales Tax (State v/s. M/s Shyamsunder Rajendra Prasad, Bhilwara) in which it had been held that 'ribbons' are not tapes or laces and are not covered by the exemption notification. Regarding bangles, he said that the assessing authority had treated the bangles sold by the dealer as not covered by the exemption and had given good reason for doing so. The Deputy Commissioner, reversed the finding without adequate grounds. Learned counsel for the assessee referred to the Deputy Commissioner's order and said that the Dy. Commissioner had given his finding regarding bangles on the basis of his perusal and examination of bills, correspondence and samples, and this finding was, therefore, well-founded. Regarding ribbons and braids, he said that the Dy. Commissioner had found that that were no sales of braids, and that the turnover of Rs. 2704/- pertained to 'slates' and ribbons and not braids & ribbons. I have considered the arguments. So far as ribbons are concerned, the ruling cited by the departmental representative is directly applicable and they should be treated as taxable. What part of the turnover of Rs. 2704/- pertained to slates will have to be determined, as the Dy. Commissioner has not done so in his order. In regard to the nature of the bangles, the Deputy Commissioner's order contains an inconsistency. While at one place he says that "it is true that the type of bangles has not been specified in the bills" at another place, in the same para he says "it is clear from these bills that the goods imported were bangles made of celluloid Xylonite". He did see some samples, but that itself could hardly justify the conclusion that the whole of the turnover in dispute pertained to Xylonite bangles. While this is so, the order of the assessing authority is also, I am afraid, based more on suspicions and inferences than on findings of fact. A more careful examination of accounts, bills etc. , and investigation with reference to prices of Xylonite bangles as compared to other kinds of bangles (plastic etc.) would be necessary to determine whether the whole of the disputed turnover relates to bangles not covered by the exemption. The case is therefore, remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for further examination and enquiry with reference to observations in para 6 and 8, and passing appropriate orders in the light thereof. . ;