TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) runs: "6.(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, make an exemption, or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act- (i) on the sale of any specified class of goods, at all points or at a specified point or points in the series of sales by successive dealers; or (ii) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover. (2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1)- (a) may extend to the whole State or to any specified area or areas therein; (b) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, including conditions as to licences and licence fees." The relevant portion of the notification dated 25th March, 1954, published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 7th April, 1954, ran: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939) and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor of Madras hereby exempts, with effect from the 1st April, 1954, all sales of....... flowers, vegetables ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods declared by this Act to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent." By its terms section 3 of the Act LII of 1952 is made applicable only to a law made after the commencement of that Act. Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) was one enacted long before Act LII of 1952, and section 3 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act subjected the turn- over of the sales of all goods to tax. The definition of turnover in section 2(i) of the Act included sale of all goods; and vegetables are undoubtedly goods. Therefore it was not a case of subjecting the sales of vegetables to tax under any law made by the Legislature of the Madras State subsequent to the commencement of Act LII of 1952. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the imposition of the tax on the sale of vegetables in which he dealt, yams, green ginger and green chillies, was really under the notification dated 16th December, 1954, the validity of which the petitioner challenged. The fallacy in that argument should be obvious. It was not the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally refers to a power to issue notifications which is not to be found in the Madras Act (I of 1891). In our judgment this makes no difference and the word "order" used in the Madras Act I of 1891 is comprehensive to include the power to issue a notification. We therefore hold that the Government had the power under section 6(1) of the Act to modify or amend the earlier notification issued by it under section 6(1). The question that remains for consideration is whether the exclusion of certain items of vegetables from the class of vegetables, sales of which were exempted from liability to tax, ordered by the notification dated 16th December, 1954, was intra vires and came within the scope of the statutory power conferred on the Government by section 6(1) of the Act. We should make it clear even at the outset that we are concerned in these proceedings only with the validity of the notification dated 16th December, 1954; we are not concerned with the validity of the earlier notification dated 25th March, 1954. The statutory power conferred by section 6(1)(i) of the Act on the Government is to exempt from liability to tax the sales of any specified class of goods. The argument on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods" within section 6(1)(i) and for this purpose we shall confine ourselves to the words of the notification particularly relevant to the present context"....... vegetables and fruits (other than potatoes, onions, sweet potatoes, yam stantial articles of food.......)". We have already set out the reasoning on the basis of which the detraction from the exemption of "goods" which might be embraced within the general caption "vegetables" has been urged to be invalid. We are unable to accede to this argument. The fallacy in it proceeds from treating "vegetables" as a unitary and indivisible class of goods which once having been selected or specified for exemption was incapable of division or subtraction. Take the very classification to be found in the notification: "Varieties of vegetables which are used as spices and condiments and not as substantial articles of food " and green chillies would fall within this class. Undoubtedly the variety of vegetables thus designated would be "a class of vegetables", the classification being based on the use to which the items were normally put. If this class had instead of being denied the benefit of the exemption been itself exempted from tax, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 6(1)(i) and the challenge to its validity must be rejected. There is one other matter necessary to advert, suggested by the learned Government Pleader, whether if the impugned notification could not be sustained on the terms of section 6(1)(i) it could be held valid because of the terms of section 6(2)(b). The material portion of section 6(2)(b) runs: "Any exemption from tax.......notified under sub-section (1) (of section 6)-(b) may be subject to such restrictions.......as may be specified in the notification." The learned Assistant Government Pleader suggested that the notification dated 16th December, 1954, in effect "restricted" the ex- emption granted by the Government under section 6(1) to vegetables other than yams, green chillies and green ginger and that whether the articles exempted formed a specific class or not the same was valid because of section 6(2)(b). Though the language of section 6(2) is wide and if read without reference to the other provisions of the Act be capable of the construction contended for by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view however of the other relevant provisions of the Act, we have decided to reject this construction. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
