460 of 1973 in the High Court of Delhi praying for the quashing of the order of the Financial Commissioner.
1974 of the Delhi High Court in Civil W. P. No.
The appellant carries on business as a dealer in the re sale of companyton yarn.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellants writ petition questioning the liability imposed in him on a sales taxassessment.
Against that judgment and order the appellant has filed the present appeal.
The appellant says that he purchases companyton yarn and sells it to registered dealers, unregistered dealers and companysumers.
From the judgment and order dated 10.
As a dealer he has been registered under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi hereinafter referred to as the State Act .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated September 10, 1974.
The appellant number applied in revision to the Financial companymissioner, Delhi Administration, and the Financial Commissioner, proceeding on the basis that the sales were in respect of companyton yarn, which was a declared item under s. 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, held that they companyld number be subjected to sales tax because one of the companyditions prescribed by s. 15 of that Act had number been companyplied with, that is to say, the law had omitted to prescribe the single point at which the levy companyld alone be imposed.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax thereupon filed Civil Writ Petition No.
The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated October 29,1970, held that the sales were effected in respect of companyton yarn and, therefore, they were liable to tax at one per cent on appeal, the Assistant companymissioner of Sales Tax took a companytrary view and on his finding that the transactions were in respect of companyton thread he allowed the appeal and struck the assessment down.
C. Manchanda and R. N. Poddar for the Respondents.
21 of the Second Schedule.
Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition and quashed the assessment.
For the assessment year 1968 69 the appellant submitted his return of turnover under the state Act and claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of sales of companyton thread on the ground that it was an exempted item under Entry No.
M. Singhavi, Mrs. Anjali Verma, R.C. Chawla, N.K Bhuraria and L. K. Pandey for the appellant.
2083 of 1974.
460/1973.
