ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S MAKKAD PLASTIC AGENCIES
2011 INSC 23529 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The Rajasthan Sales Tax Assessing Officer had assessed M/s Makkad Plastic Agencies at a 10% rate, which was later set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and then restored by the Rajasthan Taxation Board. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, prompt…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusJ.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD. AND ANR.
2004 INSC 55928 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The Rajasthan government introduced a Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for industries under its Fourth Industrial Policy, classifying cement units under different categories. Two sick cement manufacturers applied for exemption claiming parity with new units, but while their applications were pending the government issued a c…
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
2015 INSC 85924 November 2015Dismissed
The Commercial Taxes Officer appealed against A Infrastructure Ltd's claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on raw material used to manufacture asbestos cement sheets. The assessing authority had disallowed the ITC, contending that the final product was exempted under Notification S.O. 377/2007, and therefore the goods were "…
M/S U.P. ASBESTOS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
2025 INSC 115424 September 2025
The Rajasthan government issued Notification S.O.377 on 9 March 2007, exempting VAT on asbestos cement sheets and bricks containing at least 25% fly ash, provided the dealer began commercial production in the state by 31‑December‑2006 and the exemption lasted until 23‑January‑2010 (later extended). The appellants, manu…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusRAJASTHAN CHEMIST ASSOCIATION
2006 INSC 46224 July 2006Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which levied tax on the first point sale of drugs, medicines and formulations by wholesalers to retailers based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the package rather than the actual consideration paid. T…
M/S. UNIVERSAL CYLINDERS LIMITEDversusTHE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER
2018 INSC 20123 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Universal Cylinders Ltd., a manufacturer of LPG cylinders, supplied cylinders to government-owned oil companies at a provisional price of Rs.682 per unit as per a purchase order that stipulated the final price would be fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoP&NG). The MoP&NG later revised the price t…
M/S MAMTA SURGICAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, RAJASTHANversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ANTI-EVASION), BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN
2014 INSC 4723 January 2014Case Partly allowed
M/S Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries, a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, purchased raw cotton and processed it into surgical cotton. The assessing authority taxed the surgical cotton at 4% for AY 1992-93, treating it as a separate commodity, and the Rajasthan Tax Board upheld this view for AY 1993-94 to 1998-9…
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANTI EVASION COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHARATPURversusM/S. AMTEK INDLA LIMITED
2007 INSC 19022 February 2007Disposed off
Mis. Amtek India Ltd. purchased plant and machinery and was assessed a penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the ground that the invoice and delivery challan dates did not match, leading the Assessing Officer to deem the documents non‑genuine. The assessee successfully challenged the penal…
M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2020 INSC 45617 July 2020Case Partly allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether Ultratech Cement Ltd. was entitled to a 75% capital investment subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 (RIPS-2003) for its Kotputli cement plant. The Court held that the scheme’s sub‑clauses (vi) and (vii) granting 75% subsidy were deleted before the company’s ap…
M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.versusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPL) & ANR.
2023 INSC 53315 May 2023Reference answered
The Supreme Court examined whether a credit note issued by an automobile manufacturer to a dealer, for replacing a defective part under a warranty, constitutes a sale liable to sales tax. It held that when the dealer uses a part from his own stock or purchases it from the market and is reimbursed by a credit note, the …
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTAversusM/S. SHUKLA & BROTHERS
2010 INSC 20915 April 2010Case Partly allowed
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department appealed to the Supreme Court after the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a tax revision petition in a cryptic order that contained no reasons. The appellant argued that the lack of reasons violated principles of natural justice, legitimate expectation, and procedural …
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.
2010 INSC 21015 April 2010Case Partly allowed
The Department intercepted a vehicle carrying paint buckets whose ST‑18A declaration form was left completely blank, and imposed a penalty under s.78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for an alleged intent to evade tax. The penalty was set aside by the appellate authority and the State Tax Board, which the Depart…
ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERversusM/S. RIJHUMAL JEEVANDAS
2010 INSC 21315 April 2010Case Partly allowed
The Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department assessed a higher sales tax rate of 12% on "ballies" sold by M/s Rijhumal Jeevandas, treating them as timber, while the normal rate for goods was 8%. The assessee appealed and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board held that ballies are not timber and set a…
M/S. JASWANT TALKIESversusCOMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BHILWARA
2007 INSC 113912 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, an exhibitor of cinematograph films, was found to have admitted 878 school children without tickets and was penalised under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.500 per viewer, totalling Rs.4,39,000, in addition to a Rs.5…
COMMERCIAL TAXATION OFFICER, UDAIPURversusRAJASTHAN TAXCHEM LTD.
2007 INSC 3512 January 2007Dismissed
Rajasthan TaxChem Ltd, a manufacturer of polyester yarn, purchased diesel to run generator sets that supplied electricity for its production process and claimed a concessional sales‑tax rate of 3% under Section 10(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The assessing authority held that diesel was not a raw material a…
M/S. DEEPAK AGRO FOODSversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
2008 INSC 81711 July 2008Dismissed
M/s Deepak Agro Foods, a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the ground that they were anti‑dated, passed after the limitation period and were therefore null and void. The Rajasthan High Court set aside those orders and remanded the matters for fre…
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, JODHPURversusM/S. VISHNU METALS
2006 INSC 7907 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Vishnu Metals, a manufacturer of stainless steel sheets, expanded its installed capacity and claimed a sales‑tax exemption under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989, on the ground that its total production—including job‑work performed for others—had increased by more than 25% of the original capacity. Th…
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD.
2008 INSC 12526 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The Department (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer) appealed against a High Court order that set aside a penalty imposed on M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd for transporting goods with a blank but signed Declaration Form ST 18A/18C. The vehicle was intercepted on 30‑03‑1999; the form lacked material particulars despite being…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusM/S. D.P. METALS
2001 INSC 4814 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 requires transporters to carry declaration Form ST‑18A and other documents under Section 78(2). A truck of Mis D.P. Metals was stopped at a check‑post without the form, seized and a penalty of 30% of the goods' value was imposed under Section 78(5). The respondents challenged the const…
M/.S. GULJAG INDUSTRIESversusCOMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER
2007 INSC 8103 August 2007Disposed off
The case concerned several civil appeals arising from the imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in pari materia with Section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954) for carrying goods in movement with blank Form ST‑18A/18C that had been signed but left incomplete. The Supr…
M/S KUMAR MOTORS, BAREILLYversusCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW
2007 INSC 962 February 2007Dismissed
M/S Kumar Motors, Bareilly purchased auto‑rickshaw chassis and bodies separately and assembled them before sale. The issue was whether this assembly amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(e‑1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and consequently attracted purchase tax under Section 3‑AAAA despite the use of Form III‑A. …