9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t its manufactured product." This exemption applied for the period 1st October, 1957 to 1st October, 1958. Though the earlier notification dated 15th June, 1950, insisted on a licence being taken for claiming the benefit of exemption, the notification dated 25th March, 1958, did not impose any such condition. The implications of this will be dealt with later in this judgment. With effect from 1st October, 1958, the above item was omitted by a subsequent notification dated 23rd September, 1958, and on the same day another notification was issued allowing the exemption subject to the condition that a licence should be taken. The effect of these notifications also will be considered later. 4.. The main question for consideration is whether "green ginger" can be considered as coming under the entry "vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product." We have come to the conclusion that it can and should be so considered. 5.. "Green chillies" and "green ginger" go together in the culinary art of Malabar. It is common ground that the Department has treated the petitioner's turnover in respect of "green chillies" as exempt from taxation on the ground that "green chillies" are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or vegetable for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashewnuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously 'No' ". 8.. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286., the Supreme Court had to decide whether "betel leaves" can be considered as vegetables. It said that it cannot be so considered and observed: "Reliance was placed on the dictionary meaning of the word 'vegetable' as given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as 'of or pertaining to, comprised or consisting of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts'. But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. it has not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning that sense which people conversant with the subjectmatter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it." The Supreme Court referred to the Canadian decision above mentioned as well as to the decision of the High Court of the Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants' Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Sales Tax Rules reading, "In the case of the undermentioned goods the turnover of a dealer for the purpose of these rules shall be the amount for which the goods are bought by the dealer: (a) Groundnut................." held that "groundnut" mentioned in the above rule would include both shelled and unshelled groundnut. "Green ginger" must, therefore, be taken to be included in the term "ginger" in Schedule I of the Act. Even so, it is open to the Government to exempt from taxation any of the goods mentioned in the Schedule as well. The real question, therefore, for consideration is whether "vegetables" mentioned in the notifications dated 15th June, 1950, and 23rd September, 1958, will take in "green ginger" also. We think it will. It appears to us that the explanation added by the notification dated 10th December, 1960, is really a proviso though termed an explanation. A proviso, no doubt, is usually introduced by the word "provided" but the absence of the word is not conclusive. The substance and not the form will control the interpretation. The mere styling of a provision as an "explanation" is not decisive of its character. An explanation should only explain or clarify. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 8 has no application; but the contention on behalf of the Department is that even if "green ginger" is exempt from taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, it is still liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in view of sub-section (2) of section 8 of that Act. That sub-section as it stood up to 1st October, 1958, reads as follows: "Tax payable by any dealer in any case not falling within subsection (1) in respect of the sale by him of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the same rates and in the same manner as would have been done if the sale had, in fact, taken place inside the appropriate State, and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law." By Act 31 of 1958, the above sub-section was deleted and the following new sub-sections (2) and (2A) were introduced. They came into force from 1st October, 1958: "(2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axed." 16.. The Bench that decided the above cases held that the wording of sub-section (2) of section 8 justified the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and remarked: "What the sub-section directs is to treat the inter-State sales as intra-State sales and assess them on the basis of the State enactment. It follows that if there is no liability under the State enactment, there can be no liability under the Central Act either." The argument advanced on behalf of the Department that the latter portion of sub-section (2) of section 8 which says "and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law" makes a transaction liable to tax under the Central Act even if it is not liable to tax under the State Act, was not accepted. It was held in that case that to place such an interpretation on the latter part of sub-section (2) of section 8 "will amount to saying that the second part of the sub-section annihilates the first, a calamity which no Legislature could possibly have intended for its progeny". It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
