Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard learned Standing Counsel. None appeared for the respondent even after service. The revision has been moved u/s 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and is directed against the judgment and order dated May 29, 1991, passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly. This revision was filed way back in the year 1992 and is received by transfer from the Allahabad High Court, u/s 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.

The only question of law, raised in the revision is whether the price of gunny bags was liable to be taxed by adding the same in the turnover of the dealer with the price of the sugar ?

The assessment pertains to the year 1986-87, for which year the tax on sugar was exempted u/s 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The sugar is always sold in gunny bags as it is packed in gunny bags before it is stored for sale. The assessee is the manufacturer of sugar and was not supposed to keep it in loose without any packing.

Merely on the basis of the fact that the sugar was sold in gunny bags by the manufacturer, it cannot be said that the assessee has sold the gunny bags. There is nothing on the record to establish that there was any direct agreement between the assessee and the purchaser of sugar for sale of gunny bags for the specific amount as consideration. Since no price was paid for the gunny bags, there cannot be said to be sale of gunny bags, as it does not come within the definition of "sale", in view of Section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

In view of the above discussions, the revision has no force and the same is dismissed in limine.