M. Jafar A. Majid, Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. this is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. the court could be said to have confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. the outer limit of rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. accordingly, the fir and all proceedings connected therewith would be deemed to be quashed. .....carpet yarn or 'kati', which was admittedly un spun fibre was used in weaving within the contemplation of those notifications. the concept of weaving was considered and the court then addressed itself to determining whether the process by which the woollen carpet 'kati' was used in the preparation of carpets could properly be called 'weaving', the facts found, on the basis of evidence, by the appellate commissioner and the revisional authority were referred to and on this foundation, this court found the conclusion inescapable that woollen 'kati' was neither yarn nor un spun fibre used in weaving. 3. in the instant case, there is no finding of fact arrived at by the revisional authority that is notably different from that referred to in the said judgment, except that the 'kati' here is of greater length. it is difficult, in this situation, to hold that a different approach is required. following the said judgment, therefore, the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. We are concerned in these appeals against the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad related to the Assessment Years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The issue relates to assessment for the purposes of sales tax of un spun woollen carpet yarn or 'Kati'. The High Court placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CST v. Sarin Textiles Mills, : AIR1975SC1262 to hold that 'Kati' was not exempt from tax.

2. In the present case, the appellant-assessee claims exemption under a notification dated 1-2-1968; the exemption is provided to yarn of all kinds, including un spun fibre used in weaving, other than, among others, woollen carpet yarn. This Court, in the judgment aforementioned, was concerned with other notifications that referred to yarn of all kinds, including un spun fibres used in weaving. The question this Court addressed itself to was whether woollen carpet yarn or 'Kati', which was admittedly un spun fibre was used in weaving within the contemplation of those notifications. The concept of weaving was considered and the Court then addressed itself to determining whether the process by which the woollen carpet 'Kati' was used in the preparation of carpets could properly be called 'weaving', The facts found, on the basis of evidence, by the Appellate Commissioner and the revisional authority were referred to and on this foundation, this Court found the conclusion inescapable that woollen 'Kati' was neither yarn nor un spun fibre used in weaving.

3. In the instant case, there is no finding of fact arrived at by the revisional authority that is notably different from that referred to in the said judgment, except that the 'Kati' here is of greater length. It is difficult, in this situation, to hold that a different approach is required. Following the said judgment, therefore, the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.