allahabad high court

Allahabad High Court: In a sales tax revision filed against the Tribunal order classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification dated 31-03-2011, Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the Tribunal order.

Issue: Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that granite stone block and pieces sold by the dealer is taxable at 5% (including additional tax) under Entry No.109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification dated 31-03-2011, sand, gitti, bajri, kankar, stone ballast, stone, but not including glazed stone marble and marble chips, despite the fact that granite stone has not been mentioned in the said notification, being exhaustive entity?

The revenue argued that in the classification, Entry No.109 does not include granite stone, and accordingly, the same should be treated as not classified and taxed at 14.5%. Further, Entry No.109 only includes substances that are of less value as the items included therein are “sand, gitti,bajri, kankar, stone ballast, stone”. Also, granite stone is an expensive item and was never meant to be included in Entry No.109.

After interpreting the intention of the legislature, the Court viewed that glazed stone, marble and marble chips have been specifically excluded from the definition of “stone” in Entry No.109. If the Legislature wanted to exclude granite stone, the same could have very well been done by the amendment carried out on 31-03-2011. Thus, several items must be excluded that would ordinarily be termed “stone”, which is not permissible in law.

After perusing the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has held that stones that have not been processed in any manner, would be included in Entry No.109, whereas processed stones that have gone through some kind of procedure would be excluded. The Court said that the above finding is in consonance with the fact that glazed stone has been specifically excluded from Entry No.109. Thus, the Court refused to interference in the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, dismissed the revision petition.

[Commissioner v Peethambra Granites Pvt Ltd, sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 79 of 2023, Order dated 16-01-2023]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Revisionist:- Advocate Ravi Shanker Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party:- Advocate Ishir Sripa

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.