TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not properly maintained. There were two instances of purchases which could not be verified, for lack of original bill in one case, and alleged discrepancy in another. Some of the sale bills did not contain the addresses of the customers though the bills were for more that Rs. 500. He also found some stock discrepancy on analysis. For these reasons he added 10 per cent to the disclosed sales. In appeal, the AAC found that the defects relating to purchases did not exist. In respect of defects noticed in respect of lack of bills, the AAC found that the defect existed. He also found that the stock account was not properly maintained inasmuch as the receipts were noted either on the basis of purchases bills in some and actual receipts in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cottonseed hull bran 600.00 1,560.00 2,160.00 . . 4,605.00 84,405.00 1,32,010.00 We will have to consider the appellant s claim for exemption on these turnovers : 4. It is the appellant s case that the appellant is eligible for exemption on sales from 4th March, 1974 on cattle feed. There were two notification dated 4th March, 1974 and 23rd March, 1974 during the year. Both of them are reproduced below with the relevant portions under lined : First Notification : Notification No. II(1) Rev/386(g)/74 dt. 4th March, 1974. "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959) the Governor of Tamil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion itself. We do not find any material in the second Notification to hold that it was intended to be merely clarificatory or that it was otherwise retrospective. Retrospectivity cannot be lightly presumed. We will interpret therefore each Notification to have effect from their respective dates. In other words, the first Notification dt. 4th March, 1974 will apply till 22nd March, 1974. Hence in respect of sales made by the appellant upto 22nd March, 1974 we have only to interpret the words in the first Notification reproduced above and for sales thereafter, the second Notification has to be referred. We therefore, have to reject the learned State Representative s plea that the later Notification should be construed for the entire period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material to counter appellant s assertion that tapioca flour dust is generally used and recognised in trade as cattle feed and that in appellant s own case it was sold by the appellant and purchased by his customers for use and as "cattle feed". Under the circumstances the turnover to the extent of Rs. 47,605 relating to the period from 4th March, 1974 to 22nd March, 1974 (as mentioned in para 3 supra) is exempt under the first notification reproduced in para 4 supra. 6. As for the other sales amounting to Rs 84,405 after 22nd March, 1974 mentioned in para 3 supra, we find that we have to apply the second notification reproduced in para 4 supra. The second Notification clearly exempts rice bran or wheat bran of dust of pluses, and grams ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dust is also not similar excluded. The learned State Representative would say that the sales of cotton seed husk, tapioca flour dust and cotton seed hull bran could no longer be treated as sales of cattle feed because cattle feed has specific definition from 23rd March, 1974 to mean "rick bran, or wheat bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams" only. He claimed that the items of cotton seed husk, tapioca flour dust and cotton hull bran have not been treated as cattle feed under the second Notification since they are not "husk and dust of pulses and grams" nor are they "rice bran or wheat bran". According to him, these listed items after "Namely" alone could be considered as cattle feed because these items are specifically lited after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative that an exhaustive definition for cattle feed has undoubtedly been sought to be given. The context also does not seem to warrant such a view. Cattle feed is a word which is a word which is commonly understood by the people. It is neither a legal term nor a term of art. A definition under the circumstances could not normally be construed to be required at all unless the object was to put certain items of cattle feed beyond possible doubt (since items like wheat or rice bran have other uses as for example as poor man s diet besides being cattle-feed) and to exclude certain other items of cattle feed which is not, as a matter of State policy, intended to be given the benefit of such exemption though they are "cattle feed" in the gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
