Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3812 of 1993
Petitioner: Commissioner of Sales Tax
Respondent: Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3812 of 1993
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1998
Head Note:
EXCISE
Waste news-print – Damage caused in transit or torn or spoilt during process of printing. Held that Court has rightly held that it was not a by-product or a subsidiary product nor it was intended to carry business of printing in discarded newsprint. State of Gujarat v. Raipur manufacturing Co Ltd (AIR 1967 SC 1066) referred.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1066) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order under challenge. The appeal is pressed only in regard to waste newsprint obtained due to damage caused in transit or due to newsprint getting torn or spoilt in the process of printing. The High Court, relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1066) found that there was no intention to carry on business in the discarded newsprint when the newsprint was ac-quired nor was such newsprint a by-product or a subsidiary pro-duct that arose in the course of the process of printing and publishing newspapers, which was the principal activity of the respondent. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order under challenge. The appeal is pressed only in regard to waste newsprint obtained due to damage caused in transit or due to newsprint getting torn or spoilt in the process of printing. The High Court, relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1066) found that there was no intention to carry on business in the discarded newsprint when the newsprint was ac-quired nor was such newsprint a by-product or a subsidiary pro-duct that arose in the course of the process of printing and publishing newspapers, which was the principal activity of the respondent. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
