Packwell Print Industrial Co-Operative Society Limited vs Commissioner,Commercial Tax

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—We do not find any scope of interference in the above revision applications. The fact remains that the revisionist is a unit registered with All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or with Uttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, is not in dispute. There is no dispute that the revisionist has complied with all necessary requirements to be complied for obtaining and continuing such registration. The revisionist manufactures stationery items as that of file cover, file board, etc. It sells items manufactured by it to all and sundry. While effecting sale, it reached salable turnover requiring it to be registered with the sales tax authorities and, thereupon, to pay sales tax to the Sales Tax Department of the State. It got registered, but held out that it is not liable to pay any tax, inasmuch as, it is exempted under a notification dated February 22, 1997. The assessing authority accepted such contention and, accordingly, did not require the revisionist to pay any tax. Later on, a survey was conducted when it transpired that the assessee does not come within the purview of the exemption notification. Accordingly, assessment was made for several assessment years. Against the assessment orders, the assessee went before the appellate authority and the appellate authority felt, unfortunately, that onus of establishing that the assessee does not come within the exemption notification is with the Department and as the Department has proceeded to hold that the assessee does not come within the exemption notification based on purchase by it on two occasions machine made papers, the assessment orders are bad and fresh assessment orders are required to be passed. Accordingly, the matters were remitted back to the assessing officer. Aggrieved thereby, the Sales Tax Department approached the Tribunal and succeeded before the Tribunal and hence these revision applications. It is true that in course of survey, two transactions pertaining to purchase of machine made papers came to fore. However, at no point of time even up to the filing of the revision applications, there is any assertion on the part of the assessee that it purchased any handmade paper. At the same time, if the assessee had worked on papier mache, then to the extent of working on papier mache the revisionist is exempted. There is nothing on record which would show that the revisionist has worked on papier mache, i.e., manufactured anything by utilizing papier mache.

The fact remains that he, who seeks to contend that he is entitled to the benefit of exemption, the onus is upon him to establish that he is covered by the exemption notification. In the instant case, exemption to a unit as that of the revisionist was available only if it had used as raw material handmade paper for manufacturing of file cover, file board, etc., or had used as raw material papier mache for manufacturing any product there from. The revisionist not only made no attempt to establish the same, did not even make any assertion, at any point of time, that it has used, in fact, handmade paper for manufacturing of file cover, file board, etc., or that it used papier mache for manufacturing of anything out of the same. On the contrary, revisionist accepted the fact that it purchased the second grade, third grade or the fourth grade paper manufactured by paper mills by use of machine. May be such paper is worst than handmade paper, but the same cannot be equated with handmade paper; the same being, admittedly, machine made paper. In those circumstances, we are not in a position to hold that the Tribunal erred in rendering the judgment under revisions. The revision applications fail and are dismissed.