In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Law , Board of Revenue Taxes , Ernakulam vs. M s. Coco Fibres, AIR 1991 SC 378, this Court companysidered the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1984 wherein the term manufacturing process was companysidered and held that companyversion of companyonut husk into a companyonut fibre was a manufacturing process.
The short argument submitted by Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, was that companyl briquettes are as same as companyl and hence numberliability of tax can be fastened on the sale of companyl briquettes.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
ST II 3685 dated 31.7.1986.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that Notification No.
ST II 5782 dated 7.9.1980, issued under Section 3 A of the UP Trade Tax Act provided that companyl included companye in all its forms, but excluded charcoal.
The same meaning was given to the word companyl in the subsequent Notification No.
His further appeal to the Tribunal was referred to a larger Bench of five members which decided against the assessee vide its order dated 16.3.2004.
1790 of 2005 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2004 of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Trade Tax Revision No.
In both the Notifications, the rate of tax was 4.
The assessee applied for exemption rebate of sales tax claiming that the companyl briquettes are the same companymodity as companyl which had already been subjected to tax.
Aggrieved, he filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.7.2001.
1261 of 2004 M s. Sonebhadra Fuels, Ravinagar, vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.
The appellant is carrying on business in companyl and also manufactures companyl briquettes, popularly known as companyl tikli.
1791/2005, 1792/2005 and 1793/2005 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Civil Appeal No.
with C.A. Nos.
However, his claim was rejected by the Assessing Authority vide Assessment Order dated 31.3.1999.
