Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 91 1975 SLD 91 (1976) 34 TAX 5
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A.Nos.81(KB) of 1971-72; 22(KB) of 1972-73; 483(KB) of 1973-74;465 (K3) to 468(KB) of 1973-74;477(KB) of 1973-74;K.C.X11565(KB) to CX11566(B) and K.C,XII/567(B) (Assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61;1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1967-68 to 1971-72), decision
M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, A.A. DARESHANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, M.Z. FARRUKH AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNT MEMBERS
Ali Athar and Saeed Ahmad, Advocates, for the Appellant. Miss. Razia Bano, D.R., for the
Respondent

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 7,7(1)

[Sales Tax Act, 1951(III of (1951)].........Section 7(1), rear: with item 15 of Notification No. 9, dated 27.6,1951-Exemption-Liquified sodium silicate Whether product of steam and a .such entitled to exemption under item 15 of Notification 9, dated 27-6-51-Held yes On consideration of the facts, we have no hesitation in holding that "liquefied sodium silicate", which the appellant has now produced before us at the time of hearing, is definitely a product of steam, Not only steam ` if constitutes an integral component of the product but the product itself cannot possibly be produced without the chemical reaction of saturated steam. Whether the appellant prepared and marketed this same commodity in all the years under consideration is, however, a question of h' h a correct finding can only be given after a proper enquiry. fact, The assessing officer should hold an enquiry to find out if in all the years, under consideration, the appellant produced and marketed so rum in a liquefied form, in which it has been produced before us. If the Finding is in the affirmative, the product of the appellant would be exempt from levy of Sales Tax, under item 15 of Notification No. 9 of 1951. Cases referred to :- S.T.A.Nos.91 to 196 of 1962-63(1963) 8 Taxation 83 (Trib) and S.T.A. Nos. 209 to 212 of 1966-67. ORDER [The order was passed by A. A. DARESHAN], Judicial Member.-Of these eleven appeals, three relating to charge years 195869, 1959-60 and 1960-61 arose out of orders of re-assessment passed in the case of F...C...Ind __(E ..P,_,) who had earlier, gone in appeal, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, against the original orders of assessment. The appellants, who manufactured sodium silicate, had been assessed to Sales Tax in the first instance also, in respect of these three years ; but in appeal, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax 'D' Range, taking note of appellant's contention, that "their products were exempt within the meaning of Item No.15 of Sales Tax Notification No. 9 of 27.6.1951, being a product of steam" held that, "the contention of the appellant was correct". He, then, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the ease to the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492