TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very), Unit-I, Nagpur, respondent No. 2, passed two assessment orders dated 29th December, 1983 for different periods, namely, 1st November, 1978 to 21st October, 1979 and 22nd October, 1979 to 7th November, 1980 rejecting the stand in the returns filed by the petitioner that copra powder was subject to sales tax only at 4 per cent as mentioned in Schedule B, Part II. The respondent No. 2 held that, copra powder is altogether a different substance than copra and as it was not included either in Schedule B or in the exempted category of goods mentioned in Schedule A, it was subject to tax at 5 + 3 per cent under residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E as it stood at the relevant time, i.e., before its amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 32 of 1981. By this writ petition these two orders are impugned. 3.. It appears that the respondents were consistently treating copra powder as "copra" for the purposes of the BST Act till the year 1978 when the Commissioner of Sales Tax of the State took a different view of the matter, vide his order dated 23rd October, 1978 in the case of M/s. Mahesh Khopra Industries and M/s. Malhar Products. By the time the impugned orders were passed, the question i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt entry does not refer to copra simpliciter but as a species of the genus-oilseed and as copra-kis does not answer the description-oilseed, the expression "copra" in the context means only copra full or in halves but not crushed copra. It seems to us that no reasons exist to depart from the conclusion arrived at by the Karnataka High Court and that the stand taken by the Revenue cannot be accepted in face of series of decisions laying down various tests on the point. 6.. We will first take up the point that entry copra is not copra simpliciter but as oilseed-copra. In this connection the word "that is to say" used in the entry falls for consideration. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 2753, this word has been explained thus: "That is to say. (1) 'That is to say' is the commencement of an ancillary clause which explains the meaning of the principal clause. It has the following properties: (1) it must not be contrary to the principal clause. (2) it must neither increase nor diminish it. (3) where the principal clause is general in terms it may restrict it." Thus this expression is generally used to fix the meaning of what is to be defined and not to ampl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dients of copra. In our judgment this aspect of the matter goes to the very root of the question. Clear ratio of the various Supreme Court decisions is that unless the nature of the original substance changes the derivative substance should be taxed as the original substance in the absence of specific provision to the contrary. The tests of end use of the articles and so also of retaining of the form of the original articles have been pushed in background by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions referred to above. Nothing else can explain equating of vanaspati with groundnut oil, alchidana with sugar, charcoal with coal, shampoo with soap and parched or puffed rice with rice. All these items are commercially recognised as different commodities and their uses are not always the same. The clear ratio laid down is that it is not the form but the substance that matters and unless the identity of an article is completely lost due to changes in character, the item should be construed wide enough to include that item in all its forms, in the absence of specific provision to the contrary. We may at this stage also refer to the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agarwal Co. [1983] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w taken by another High Court on the interpretation of the section of a statute which is an all India statute." Following this decision, in another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chimanlal J. Dalal Co. [1965] 57 ITR 285 it is observed: "This is the practice of this Court, and, as we have already stated, it has been generally followed by this Court, barring certain exceptions like where inadvertently the decision was not brought to its notice or where in the decision of the other Courts some relevant provision of law had been omitted to be considered. The decision of the Gujarat High Court is a very elaborate one, considering all the relevant provisions of law. This is, therefore, not a case in which we should depart from the aforesaid policy of this Court. The answer, therefore, will have to be against the Revenue." 11.. Shri Desai, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, invited our attention to some of the decisions which according to him have taken a contrary view. In the State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmuga Vilas Cashew-nut Factory [1953] 4 STC 205 (SC) it has been held that "cashew-nuts" and "cashew-nut kernels " are two d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
