State of A.P. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.

.....tax revision filed against order of tribunal - tribunal confined discount only to liquor and not to bottles or packaging materials - container and bottles purchased from market and there is nothing unnatural in confining discount only to liquor manufactured by assessee. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the..........found that the discount relates only to liquor and not to the container or packing material. the tribunal found that bottles and cartons were purchased from the market and there is nothing unnatural in confining the discount only to liquor manufactured by the assessee. the sale bills were analysed to come to a finding that the discount did not extend to items other than liquor. this is a finding of fact which does not give rise to any question of law.3. the second item to dispute is the credit notes allowed as incentives on the sales of imfl. the tribunal found that the assessee issued credit notes periodically and within the financial year itself and therefore abatement of price as a consequence of such credit notes cannot be included in the turnover of the assessee-respondent. the main ground on which the revisional authority subjected this item to tax was that some of the last purchasers (who were also liable to pay tax on last sale), failed to reflect the reduction relatable to credit notes in their net turnover and paid the tax on lesser value only. in other words, some of the purchasers did not declare higher turnover enhanced by the value of the credit notes issued to them. it appears that the said purchasers were assessed to tax on the higher turnovers. the appellate tribunal confirmed those assessment. t.r.cs are now pending. the deputy commissioner purported to rely on the observations made by this court while disposing of the stay application. the tribunal rightly commented that 'the revisional authority extracted from the high court's order the contentions advanced on behalf of the purchasers from the appellant and treated them as the observations made by the high court. the tribunal commented that it amounted to misreading of the order of the high court. the tribunal rightly commented that the high court only observed that if the tax on differential value was not collected from the appellant, it did not preclude the authorities concerned from.....