M/S.SHIV SHAKTI GOLD FINGER,RAJASTHAN vs. ASSTT.COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER,RAJASTHAN

C.A. No.-009074-009074 - 1996Supreme Court10 May 1996Bench: K. RAMASWAMY G.B. PATTANAIK2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Shiv Shakti Gol Finger, sought exemption from sales tax on 'Gole Papad' manufactured from Maida, Salt Starch, Papad Soda, Alum, and Food colour. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, had a notification dated March 9, 1970, exempting 'Papad and Badi' from sales tax. The Additional Commissioner, by an order dated August 27, 1982, held that Gole Papad was not covered by the notification. The Sales Tax Tribunal, by an order dated March 17, 1986, allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the notification covered all varieties of Papad, irrespective of shape or ingredients. The State challenged this in revision before the High Court of Rajasthan, which, by an order dated April 18, 1991, allowed the revision and held the appellant not entitled to exemption. The present appeal is by special leave against the High Court's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the interpretation given by the High Court was not correct and that of the Sales Tax Tribunal was correct. The Court reasoned that the notification clearly uses the word 'Papad' as a genus, and its species are made from various ingredients like pulses, rice, maida, potato, sago, etc. The notification mentions 'Papad and Badi', i.e., Mangori, and the Court found no intention to differentiate between 'gole' or 'flat' papad made of any ingredient. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the exemption. The appeal was allowed, and it was noted that if the government faced difficulties, they could make necessary declarations by amending the exemption notification. No costs were awarded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether 'Gole Papad' manufactured from Maida, Salt Starch, Papad Soda, Alum, and Food colour is covered by the notification dated March 9, 1970, exempting 'Papad and Badi' from sales tax, under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notification uses 'Papad' as a genus and does not intend to differentiate between different shapes or ingredients. They relied on the interpretation that the notification covers all varieties of Papad. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that 'Gole Papad' was not covered by the notification, as indicated by the Additional Commissioner's order. The High Court's decision supported this view, implying a narrower interpretation of 'Papad' in the notification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2 PETITIONER: M/S. SHIV SHAKTI GOL FINGER Vs. RESPONDENT: ASSTT. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAIPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: THE 10TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik K.K.Jain, Ajay K.Jain, Shashi Bhushan and Pramod Dayal, Advs. for the apellant Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order and judgment dated April 18, 1991 made in Sales tax Revision No.110 of 1987 by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.

The respondent-State exercising the power under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, (for short, the ’Act’) by a notification dated March 9, 1970 had exempted Papad and Badi, i.e. Mangori from sales tax. When the appellant made an application for exemption of Gole Papad manufactured out of Maida, Salt Starch, Papad Soda, Alum and Food colour from sales t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 4(2)

All 85 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →