9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther things, the appellant manufactures and deals in chemical fertilisers. It also prepares fertiliser mixtures. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the appellant claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 2,35,01,129.47 and Rs. 2,07,94,490.73 respectively relating to sales of fertiliser mixtures. The case of the appellant was that as the fertiliser mixtures were prepared by dry mixing of various chemical fertilisers [shown as sub-items (1) to (15) of serial No. 21 of the First Schedule to the Act] according to the standard formula approved by the Director of Agriculture at its mixing works manually by means of shovels and as the resultant product could not be said to be a commodity different from the ingredients composing it which had been purchased within the State and had suffered tax under item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the Act, they could not be taxed again. The assessing officer disallowed the exemption on the entire turnover for the year 1969-70. He, however, allowed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,65,44,223.73, which represented the mixture sold after August 6, 1970 -the date when the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act (26 of 1970) amending ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious articles of chemical fertilisers referred to in item 21 is sold as a different commercial product and for a different user, it has to be treated as a different article from the components." In rendering this decision, the Madras High Court relied on the ratio of the decision of its own court in Imperial Fertiliser and Company v. State of Madras [1973] 31 S.T.C. 390. to the effect that if the mixture sold has different chemical properties and is treated as a different commodity in commerce, its sale cannot be taken to be a second sale of chemical fertiliser merely because the components have suffered tax at an earlier stage as chemical fertilisers. After failing to obtain a certificate of fitness for appeal to this court, the appellant applied for special leave to this court, which was granted, vide order dated March 15, 1974. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mr. Desai has urged that as section 3(2) of the Act provides for levy of sales tax in respect of goods mentioned in the First Schedule at the rate and only at the point specified therein and chemical fertilisers which are specified in sub-items (1) to (15) of item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the Act are liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-meal; (16) any mixture of one or more of the articles mentioned in items (1 to 15) and one or more of the organic manures. Point of levy is at the point of first sale in the State, rate of tax is 3½ per cent." A plain reading of the above-mentioned provisions would show that it is only when a chemical fertiliser specified in sub-items (1) to (15) of item No. 21 of the First Schedule is sold in the same condition in which it is purchased that it is not subject to a fresh levy. Fertiliser mixture, it would be noted, is not the same article as the ingredients composing it. It is sold as a different commercial product. It is put to a different use and has different chemical properties. As such, it has to be treated as a different article from its component parts. The question whether there is any manufacturing process involved in the preparation of any fertiliser mixture or whether shovel mixing of the chemical fertilisers amounts to manufacture or not is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the determination of the question before us. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay [1959] 10 S.T.C. 500., on which reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emical properties different from its components and its use is also different, it is not possible to treat the manure mixture as the same article as the components themselves. The following observations made in this decision are pertinent: "If the product obtained by mixing the various chemical fertilisers referred to in item 21 is sold as a different commercial product and for a different user, it has to be treated as a different article from the components, whether the process of such mixture is one of manufacture or not." In State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 S.T.C. 319 at 324, 325-326 (S.C.)., (Civil Appeals Nos. 58-59 of 1971 and 880-883 of 1971 decided on January 19, 1976) a Bench of four Judges of this Court, to which one of us, namely, my Lord the Hon'ble Chief Justice was a party, had occasion to consider the meaning of the expression "that is to say" and the tests to be applied in determining whether the sale of a certain class of goods is subject to the levy of single point sales tax. With regard to the expression "that is to say", our learned brother, Beg, J., who spoke for the court, observed: "We think that the precise meaning of the words 'that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
