1991 (8) TMI 288 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) is an agricultural implement within the meaning of U.P. Government notification dated November 14, 1980, and as such is exempt from levy of sales tax? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As from 1985 onwards the State Government has specifically exempted sugarcane crushers from the levy of sales tax.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a sugarcane crusher is considered an "agricultural implement" for the purpose of exemption from sales tax under a specific government notification.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of a sugarcane crusher as an "agricultural implement" under a Uttar Pradesh government notification to determine its exemption from sales tax. The appellant, a registered dealer selling machinery including sugarcane crushers, claimed exemption based on the notification. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, and the Sales Tax Tribunal ruled against the appellant, stating that the sugarcane crusher did not qualify as an agricultural implement. The Allahabad High Court upheld this decision based on previous case law and reasoning that the manufacturing of gur from sugarcane is not part of the agricultural process. The High Court relied on the distinction between agricultural and manufacturing processes, emphasizing that agricultural implements are used during agricultural activities, not manufacturing processes.

In its analysis, the High Court referred to the definition of agriculture, highlighting that agricultural operations extend beyond cultivation to include activities like weeding, harvesting, and preparing the produce for the market. The Court concluded that the agricultural process ends with the harvest of the crop, and any subsequent manufacturing processes do not fall under agriculture. The judgment emphasized that the intent behind the notification was to exempt specific implements used in cultivation and growth preservation, which do not extend to activities post-agricultural processes. Therefore, the Court held that sugarcane crushers did not fall within the definition of agricultural implements as per the notification.

Additionally, the Court noted that the State Government had exempted sugarcane crushers from sales tax starting from 1985, indicating a change in the tax treatment of such equipment. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and ruling that sugarcane crushers were not considered agricultural implements under the specific notification, thereby not qualifying for the exemption from sales tax.