PATEL VOLKART PRIVATE LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISCELLANEOUS Civil Cases Nos. 212 and 213 of 1970 are also disposed of by this common judgment, as common questions of law have been referred by the Board of Revenue under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The questions referred are :

(2.) M/s. Patel Volkart Private Limited, Ujjain, and M/s. Patel Cotton Co. (Pvt.) Limited, Ujjain, are dealers and carrying on the business of purchase and sale of cotton bales. The finding of the Board of Revenue with respect to the agreement of sale of cotton bales by the assessee to various mills was to the following effect: It is, however, admitted by the applicant that it was obligatory on his part to deliver the cotton to the purchaser fully pressed in the form of bales along with the packing material. It is also not denied that if the packing materials were used at the expense of the purchaser, the latter would not have paid the full price of cotton as settled with the assessee. In this view of the matter, it was held that the price of the packing material could be assessed to tax. On that finding it was further held that the material was chargeable at the rate applicable to the said material and not at the rate applicable to the baled cotton. There was also a controversy before the Board whether the packing material was purchased by the assessee from registered dealers and having been sold in the course of inter-State sale the assessment at full rate was justified and whether hessian did not fall in the category of "cloth" and whether the sale of the packing material, if any, was not casual and whether to the sale of 1,300 cotton bales the rate applicable was the one prescribed after 16th January, 1965, or the rate available before that date. On all these controversies the decision of the Board of Revenue was against the assessee. The Board, however, referred the questions, as questions of law were involved according to the Board of Revenue.

(3.) ON question No. (3) the Board of Revenue had held that there was no material on record to support the contention of the assessee and hence the decision was given against it. That question was not pressed before us for our answer. Hence, no answer is being recorded on this question.