for the two periods ending september 30 1959 and september 30 1960 the sales tax officer assessed the respondent to sales tax holding that hydrogenated oil was exempt from sales tax but the value of the companytainers should be assessed at re.
for the other period ending september 30 1960 the value of the companytainers of the exempted goods was estimated at rs.
21 5001.
the high companyrt took the view that there was numberevidence to show that actually separate price was paid for the companytainers and hence there was numbersale and there companyld number be any tax on the companytainers.
of goods made to the assam rifles and nefa at rowriah air port for consumption outside the state of assam constitutes a sale liable to sales tax under the act ?
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 20 1964 of the assam and nagaland high companyrt in sales tax reference number 1 of 1963.
1/ for each companytainer of hydrogenated oil and at 2 annas for salt bag and a small mustard oil tin which are other exempted goods for the period ending september 30 1959.
the respondent preferred appeals to the assistant companymissioner of taxes but the appeals were dismissed.
199 and 200 of 1966.
the respondent preferred second appeals before the assam board of revenue which by its order dated june 17 1963 also dismissed the appeals.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the respondent thereafter filed an application under s. 32 of the assam sales tax act 1947 for reference of the following two questions of law to the high companyrt whether delivery.
p. maheshwari for the respondent in both the appeals .
the respondent is a registered dealer under the assam sales tax act act 17 of 1947 .
naunit lal for the appellant in both the appeals .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. these appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the high companyrt of assam and nagaland dated may 20 1964 in sales tax reference number 1 of 1963.
with regard to the second question the high companyrt held that the value of the containers was number assessable to sales tax unless separate price has been charged for the companytainers.
