1974 (5) TMI 93 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liability to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of watery coconuts - Held that - Appeal dismissed. We do not think that the Act can be said to contravene section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Under the Act though watery coconuts and dried coconuts are treated separately there is a provision for refund when the same watery coconuts, which have suffered tax, become dry coconuts later. It is for this contingency that, as we have pointed out earlier, provision for refund is made. In any case in the future no difficulty would arise as we pointed out earlier.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to sales tax on "watery coconuts" under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Classification of "watery coconuts" as oil-seeds.
3. Validity and implications of the 1971 amendment to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
4. Compliance with Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
5. Provision for refund of taxes already levied and collected.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Sales Tax on "Watery Coconuts":
The primary question addressed was whether "watery coconuts" are liable to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Initially, the Act classified coconuts into two categories: "coconuts" and "tender coconuts." However, by the 1966 amendment, "watery coconuts" were introduced as a separate category. The court examined the legislative changes and historical context, concluding that "watery coconuts" were indeed subject to tax as per the amended provisions.

2. Classification of "Watery Coconuts" as Oil-Seeds:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously held that "watery coconuts" were oil-seeds under item (vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. However, the Central Sales Tax Act was amended in 1973 to specify that only copra (excluding tender coconuts) was considered an oil-seed. The Supreme Court noted that the appeals and petitions pertained to periods before this amendment and did not challenge the High Court's finding. The court acknowledged that "watery coconuts" eventually become dry coconuts or copra, but did not delve into whether they should be classified as oil-seeds post-amendment.

3. Validity and Implications of the 1971 Amendment:
The 1971 amendment to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was scrutinized for its retrospective application and validation of taxes levied between August 1963 and April 1971. The court upheld the amendment, noting that it addressed historical tax periods and provided for refunds where double taxation might occur. The amendment was found to be in line with precedents, such as the Rattan Lal & Co. case, which emphasized the clarity of tax stages and the dealer's knowledge of their tax liability.

4. Compliance with Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act:
The court examined whether the Act contravened Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which restricts tax on declared goods to a single stage. The court found that the Act's provisions for refunding taxes on "watery coconuts" that later became dry coconuts ensured compliance. Rule 45 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules provided adequate safeguards to prevent double taxation, affirming that the Act did not violate Section 15.

5. Provision for Refund of Taxes Already Levied and Collected:
The court addressed the proviso to entry 5-A of Schedule III, which allowed for refunds where taxes had been levied on both "watery coconuts" and the resulting dry coconuts. The court found this provision valid, distinguishing it from the Bhawani Cotton Mills case, which lacked clear tax stages. The court emphasized that the historical context and legislative intent justified the refund mechanism, ensuring that dealers were not unfairly taxed twice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all writ petitions and appeals, upholding the liability to sales tax on "watery coconuts" and the validity of the 1971 amendment. The court affirmed that "watery coconuts" and "dried coconuts" are distinct commodities, and the legislative provisions, including those for refunds, were consistent with legal precedents and statutory requirements. The appellants and writ petitioners were ordered to pay the costs of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

← Previous Next →