ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER versus M/S. RIJHUMAL JEEVANDAS

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 715 · Decided: 15-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 4 S.C.R. 715 
ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 
v. 
M/S. RIJHUMAL JEEVANDAS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3291 of 2010 etc.) 
APRIL 15, 2010 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Levy of sales tax -
Issue whether 'ballies' are 'timber' attracting higher levy of tax 
A 
B 
- Decided by authorities in the negative·- High Court in c 
revision, confirming the orders - On appeal, held: High Court 
order was non-speaking and suffer~d from non-application of 
mind - Matter remitted to High Court for hearing the case de 
novo - Administration of Justice. 
The issue for consideration in the present case was 
D 
whether 'ballies' can fall under the expression 'timber' so 
as to justify levy of higher sales tax. The appellate 
authority as well as the Tax Board held that 'balfies' are 
not 'timber'. Revision petition against the order was 
dismissed by High Court. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-Revenue 
contended that the order of the High Court was passed 
without discussion either on the facts or on the questions 
of law. 
Partly allowing the appeals, and remanding the 
matter to High Court, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The orders, besides being cryptic, suffer 
from basic infirmity of non-application of mind and non-
speaking orders in law. Identical orders, though in 
G 
different revision petitions dealing with different facts, 
parties and questions of law, running into 4 lines, like the 
present one, have been passed, even without variation 
of a coma or a full stop. The order passed by the High 
715 
H 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A Court is set aside and remanded to the High Court for 
hearing the case de novo. [Paras 11 and 12) [719-F-G; 
720-B] 
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Department, 
Works Contract & Leasing, Kata vs. Mis. Shukla and Brothers 
B (2010) 4 SCR 627, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2010) 4 SCR 627 
Relied on 
Para 11 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3291 of 2010. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 7.7.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in 
S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 452 of 2008. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 3292, 3293, 3294, 3295, 3296, 3297, 3298, 3299, 
3300, 3301 of 2010. 
Abhishek Gupta, Milind Kumar, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia 
E (NP) for the Appellant. 
F 
Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Eshita Barua, U.N. Goyal, 
Pratibha Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, 
the matters are heard for final disposal. By this judgment we 
will dispose of all the aforenoticed appeals as common 
G question of law on somewhat similar facts arises for 
consideration of this Court in all these appeals. However, for 
the µurpose of brevity and to avoid repetition of facts, we would 
be referring to the facts of SLP (C) No. 11103 of 2009. 
H 
3. All these aforenoticed appeals, though refer to different 
ASSTI. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER v. RIJHUMAL 717 
JEEVANDAS [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] 
respondents, all being timber merchants but the principal 
A 
question raised in all these appeals is identical, whether the 
'ballies' can fall under the expression 'timber' so as to justify 
levying of higher sales tax. 
B 
4. M/s. Rijhumal Jeevandas (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
assessee') is a concern, trading in 'timber' and its allied 
products. The Assessing Officer vide his Order dated 17th 
November, 2000, passed an order of assessment against the 
assessee wherein he levied tax-at the rate of 8% i.e. Rs. 5, 75, 
580/- on the 'ballies' which, according to the Department, 
C 
comes within the category of 'timber' and thus, the tax ought to 
have been levied at the rate of 12%. On this premise, a notice 
was issued by the authority for amending the assessing order 
under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 
'the Act'). Despite service of notice, none had appeared on 
behalf of the assessee and the differential tax at the rate of 4% 
D 
was levied totaling to Rs. 23, 023/-. Further, the authorities 
imposed surcharge of Rs. 2, 763/- and interest of Rs. 26, 302/ 
-, and raised a total further demand of Rs. 52, 088/-. 
5. Against the aforesaid order of assessment, the 
E 
assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy 
Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax Department, Kota. 
The main argument raised was that the order was beyond the 
purview and scope of Section 37 of the Ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.