Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer vs Shiv Kripa Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

J.K. Ranka, J—This sales tax revision petition is directed against the judgment dated December 23, 2010 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1022/2010/Jaipur by which the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. It relates to assessment year 1997-98. The brief facts which can be noticed are that the respondent-assessee is carrying on business of copper and purchase of copper and thereafter manufacturing electric wire and cable and sale thereof. It was claimed by the assessee that he has purchased goods to the extent of Rs. 10,46,436 as per Notification No. P.4 (8) Finance/Group-4/91-110 dated March 6, 1991 whereas the assessing officer was of the view that it did not fall within the definition of said notification as the final product was not electric wire and cable and it does not fall within the definition of cable and the claim was rejected by the assessing officer.

The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who after analysing the notification allowed the claim of the assessee that the product which is being produced after manufacturing falls within the ambit of notification and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee.

The matter was carried in appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board by the Revenue. The Tax Board also after analysing the notification allowed the claim of the assessee and upheld the finding of DC (A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Hence this revision.

The learned counsel for the Revenue has contended that the product in which the assessee deals would not fall within the ambit of notification as its product is different. It is contended that the assessing officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee did not fall within the notification and contended that question of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board.

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the revenue and in my view, the Tax Board has correctly analysed the Notification No. P.4 (8) Finance/Group-4/91-110 dated March 6, 1991 where the intention of the Government was that lower rate is required to be kept if the purchase of copper was to be made in manufacturing of products made of copper and when the assessee has used the said copper in manufacturing of electric wires and cables therefore benefits as per notification cannot be denied. The copper has been used in product which is being manufactured by the assessee and thus is fully covered within the notification dated March 6, 1991. The assessing officer in the assessment order has not been able to prove that the copper which was purchased by the assessee has not been put to use in manufacturing of electric wire and cable and when even the assessing officer has not been able to prove contrary then the finding of fact arrived by the Tax Board as also by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is in line of the notification. The learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to pin-point how the copper was not used in the product manufactured by the assessee.

Accordingly, when definite finding has been reached by the Tax Board, in my view no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tax Board. Accordingly, I do not find'' any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order of Tax Board so as to call for any interference and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.