Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969
The State Of Gujarat vs Shah Bhagwanji Manekchand on 24 December, 1981
In State of Gujarat v. Shah Bhagwanji Manekchand [1982] 50 STC 147 the Gujarat High Court has also taken the same view. In that case the court held that for an article to be qualified as "chemicals" within the meaning of entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, it must be an intermediary chemical product which can be utilised as such for producing other finished products and that the word "chemicals" should normally be understood as a chemical which could be used as an intermediary chemical product and not as an "end-product". We find that the expression "dyes and chemicals" used in item 138 of the First Schedule is practically identical to the language considered by the Gujarat High Court. Here the commodity which is sold as an adhesive is not an intermediary product producing a chemical effect, but is an end-product which is to be used only as an adhesive and the use of which does not produce any chemical effect or bring about any chemical change. We have, therefore, to hold that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in these cases. The tax cases are therefore dismissed.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Agrawal Agencies on 6 August, 1979
4. On a due consideration of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal. It is seen from the relevant literature that Fiksol-S. 69 is an all purpose adhesive used for binding various surfaces such as leather, rubber, wood, plastic, glass, ceramic, felt, canvas, stone, sunmica, metal, linoleum, etc. Though the adhesive has been made of certain ingredients which are in the form of chemicals, the commodity called Fiksol-S. 69 cannot be treated to be a chemical by itself since the use of this adhesive for binding purposes cannot be said to produce any chemical effect or result in any chemical change. Therefore the article cannot be said to fall within the expression "dyes and chemicals" occurring in item 138 of the First Schedule. We find that the same view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agrawal Agencies [1980] 45 STC 455. It was held in that case that since there was no chemical change by the use of the adhesive, the adhesives in that case could not be treated as chemicals.
1