SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2008 - COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER (WC AND LT), BHILWARA V/S M/S UNIQUE
PRECURED RE-TRADERS, BHADALI KHEDA : JUDGMENT DTD. .4.7.2008
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2008
Commercial Taxes Officer (WC and LT), Bhilwara
versus
M/s Unique Precured Retreaders, Bhadali Kheda, Bhilwara.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 4th July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – Revenue.
2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax
Board dated 10.7.2007 whereby the learned Tax Board held that there
was no justification on the part of appellate authority, namely, Dy.
Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back to the assessing
authority vide order dtd.10.10.2005 as the assessing authority had
already passed the impugned assessment order dtd.14.11.2003
invoking powers under Section 37 of the RST Act, 1994 for
SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2008 – COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER (WC AND LT), BHILWARA V/S M/S UNIQUE
PRECURED RE-TRADERS, BHADALI KHEDA : JUDGMENT DTD. .4.7.2008
2/4
rectification of apparent mistake akin to Section 17 of the earlier Act
of 1954. The learned Tax Board held that since import of raw
material like binding gum and rubber in the State for use thereof in
tyre retreading was not exigible to work contract tax in view of the
Supreme Court decision in the case of 20th Century Finance
Corporation Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra reported in (1989) 75
STC 217 and therefore, the controversy involved in appeal before the
Tax Board was covered by the decision of the Apex Court that no
such tax can be imposed in the hands of the respondent – assessee,
the Tax Board being final fact finding body found that since the case
was covered by the decision of Apex Court and no tax could be
imposed on import of binding gum and rubber for the purpose of tyre
retreading, there was no justification for remanding the case back to
the assessing authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Revenue has submitted
that the learned Tax Board ought not to have interfered with the
remand order and allowed the assessing authority to pass fresh order
in accordance with remand order passed by the learned Dy.
Commissioner (Appeals).
SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2008 – COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER (WC AND LT), BHILWARA V/S M/S UNIQUE
PRECURED RE-TRADERS, BHADALI KHEDA : JUDGMENT DTD. .4.7.2008
3/4
4. This Court finds no force in this submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner – Revenue because the Tax Board being
final fact finding body and final appellate authority under the
provisions of RST Act is superior authority over the first appellate
authority and its powers to decide appeal are conferred under Section
85 of the RST Act, 1994. It has its own power to go into the questions
of fact and record the findings of fact and decide the question of law
arising before it. The Revenue cannot contend that the Tax Board
should not interfere with the remand order passed by the first
appellate authority and record its own finding on the question of fact
and law involved in the matter before it.
4. This Court also find no illegality in the finding and conclusion
drawn by the Tax Board on the basis of Apex Court’s decision.
Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the order of the Tax Board does
not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2008 – COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER (WC AND LT), BHILWARA V/S M/S UNIQUE
PRECURED RE-TRADERS, BHADALI KHEDA : JUDGMENT DTD. .4.7.2008
4/4
5. The revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. A copy
of this order be sent to the respondent – assessee.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.
Item No.80
Ss/-