Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1973 (4) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT
Whether appellants when they sold the rice produced out of the paddy purchased, they were entitled to exclude the turnover relating to the paddy purchased?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is a misnomer to call rice as paddy. They are two different things in ordinary parlance. Hence quite clearly when paddy is dehusked and rice produced, there has been a change in the identity of the goods. Rice and paddy are treated differently. It is true that the entries in question were brought on the statutes by notifications issued by the respective Governments, as authorised under the respective Acts. But the Acts authorised the Governments in question to either include or delete items in Schedules C and D of those Acts and it further provided that once an inclusion or deletion was made, it became a part of the law. The fact that these Acts make distinction between rice and paddy is a circumstance of great significance. Those Acts proceed on the basis that paddy is something different from rice for the purpose of sales tax.