Case: State of Madras Vs. M. N. A. Abdul Rahiman

SHAH, J.1. The respondents are dealers in tobacco and tobacco products and were assessed to sales tax for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 in respect of their turnover on sales of chewing tobacco. Their objections to assessment of turnover from sale of chewing tobacco were overruled by the taxing authority and by the appellate authorities. The orders of the Tribunal were confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in revision.2. In this group of appeals, three questions were raised before the High Court :(1) that the respondents were not liable to tax on their sales in respect of chewing tobacco prepared by them;(2) that the cost of packing material should be excluded from the taxable turnover; and(3) that they were entitled to the deduction of the excise duty paid by them on the raw tobacco produced by them and from which they manufactured chewing tobacco.3. In view of the judgment of this Court in The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 316) and The State of Madras v. M/s. Bell Mark Tobacco Company (C.As. Nos. 1071-1077 of 1965 decided on October 4, 1966; [1967] 19 S.T.C. 129), counsel for the respondents have not sought to contend that they were entitled to deduction of the excise duty paid on raw tobacco in the computation of taxable turnover of the sale of chewing tobacco. The question whether the value of packing materials may be included in the taxable turnover can obviously not arise in the appeals filed by the State.4. For the reasons which we have set out in the judgment in The State of Madras v. M/s. Bell Mark Tobacco Company (C.As. Nos. 1071-1077 of 1965 decided on October 4, 1966; [1967] 19 S.T.C. 129), these appeals will be allowed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. In view of the judgment of this Court in The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory ([1966] 17 S.T.C. 316) and The State of Madras v. M/s. Bell Mark Tobacco Company (C.As. Nos.of 1965 decided on October 4, 1966; [1967] 19 S.T.C. 129), counsel for the respondents have not sought to contend that they were entitled to deduction of the excise duty paid on raw tobacco in the computation of taxable turnover of the sale of chewing tobacco. The question whether the value of packing materials may be included in the taxable turnover can obviously not arise in the appeals filed by the State.4. For the reasons which we have set out in the judgment in The State of Madras v. M/s. Bell Mark Tobacco Company (C.As. Nos.of 1965 decided on October 4, 1966; [1967] 19 S.T.C. 129), these appeals will be allowed.