Both these revisions, by the Department with respect to the assessment year 1957 58 and by the dealer with respect to the assessment year 1960 61 were heard together and disposed of by the companymon order dated November 19, 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 3, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in S. Y. R. No.
There is numberdispute about the turnover.
The High Court agreed with the dealers companytention and held food companyors and syrup essences number to fall within the entries at items number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. This appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh is by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court answering the following question in the negative in favour of the respondent hereinafter called the dealer and against the Commissioner of Sales Tax, appellant Whether the food companyor and essence are under the circumstances items to be taxed under section 3A within the numberification No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against that decision of the Appellate Authority the Department preferred a revision to the Court of the Judge Revision , Sales Tax.
The figures of the dealers trading account were accepted by the Sales Tax Officer.
ST 905/X dated March 31, 1956 ?
The dealer carries on the business, inter alia, of selling food companyors and syrup essences.
2088 of 1969.
The dealer, according to whom, food companyors and syrup essences being unclassified goods were taxable under s. 3 and number under s. 3A of the Act, unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the Sales Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner Judicial II Sales Tax, Kanpur.
It may, however, be pointed out that for the assessment year 1957 58 the Appellate Authority had, in disagreement with the assessing officer, held food companyors and essences of syrup to be unclassified items and had granted the relief claimed by the dealer.
For the said year the Sales Tax Officer taxed food companyors and syrup essences imported by the dealer from outside Uttar Pradesh under s. 3A of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 15 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act treating them as imported companyors and perfumes.
306 of 1967.
The dealer also carries on the business of petroleum jelly but we are number companycerned with that item in this appeal number are we companycerned with the sales of imported scents and perfumes which, according to the order of the Sales Tax Officer, were separately shown in the statement filed by the dealer, ,during the assessment proceedings for the year 1960 61.
Further revision to the Court of the Judge Revisions Sales Tax, Lucknow also failed.
C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana for the appellants.
K. Sen, K. P. Gupta and Champat Rai for the respondents.
