Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 18 December, 1987
The eucalyptus logs which were subject matter of the sale in that case
before the apex Court were also meant for use in making pulp by a
manufacturer of synthetic fibre. The High Court in that case had reached
the conclusion that eucalyptus was not firewood, and therefore it was
timber. The apex Court observed that all wood is not timber as indeed
all wood is not firewood either, though perhaps it will not be incorrect
to say that both the firewood and timber are woods in its generic sense.
On the question as to whether the nature of the goods can be ascertained
with reference to its user, the apex Court observed that,
"The `user-test' is logical, but is, again, inconclusive. The particular
use to which an article can be applied in the hands of a special consumer
is not determinative of the nature of the goods. Even as the description
of the goods by the forest authorities called them varyingly as
`eucalyptus fuel wood' `eucalyptus wood-heap', etc. is not
determinative, the fact that purchasers were dealers in timber is also
not conclusive."
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs C.R. Paul And Sons on 9 November, 1984
In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board
of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. C.R.Paul & Sons, 59 STC 231, a
decision rendered by the Kerala High Court prior to the decision of the
apex Court in the case of Mukhesh Kumar Agarwal cited supra, it was held
that wood brought and sold for the purposes of making pulp could not be
regarded as firewood as the wood supplied was made specially suitable for
the manufacture of pulp, and both the seller and the purchaser had
consciously entered into an agreement for the supply of raw material for
the manufacture of pulp. The Court held that reality could not be
ignored and the concessional rate of tax provided for firewood could not
be extended to such wood which had been described by the parties as
timber pieces of specific sizes. That judgment of the Kerala High Court
was followed by another Bench of the same Court in the case of the Deputy
Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) vs. M/s. Mavoor Trade Links, A.Rajan &
Co. And others, T.R.Cs. No.27, 32, 34 to 38, etc. Of 1985 decided on
1st April, 1986. That later judgment was taken up in appeal to the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.4129 to 4138 of 1988 and was decided on
21.11.1988. The apex Court set aside that judgment in a brief order in
which it was stated that in view of the decision of that Court in the
case of Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, the judgment of the High Court is set
aside.
Deputy Commissioner vs Western India Plywoods (P.) Ltd. on 6 February, 1980
13. The Kerala High Court itself had much earlier, in the case
of Deputy Commissioner vs. Western India Plywoods (P) Ltd., 46 STC 331,
held that the predominant or ordinary use of the article would be
decisive for the purpose of determining it's nature, and the fact that it
is put to use for some other purpose also would not have any impact in
it's proper classification. The Court upheld the claim of a manufacturer
of hardboard who had used the wood purchased by it as raw material, that
it was entitled to concessional rate of tax, as the predominant and
ordinary use of the wood purchased by it was only as firewood.
A.H.K. And Company vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 November, 1979
14. Learned counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to the
decision of this Court in the case of A.H.K. & Company vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu, 46 STC 117, in which it was held that specification for the
supply of the goods involved in that case indicated that neither party
intended that the goods should be sold or bought only as firewood.
1