1967 (3) TMI 95 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay sales tax on Chilean nitrate.
2. Classification of Chilean nitrate as a mineral.
3. Classification of Chilean nitrate as a fertilizer or chemical.
4. Interpretation of the term "fertilizer" in the relevant notification.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to Pay Sales Tax on Chilean Nitrate
The primary issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax on Chilean nitrate, a fertilizer, despite its potential use for other purposes. The court held that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax on Chilean nitrate for the years under consideration because it was exempt under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as per Notification No. ST-119/X-1948 dated 7th June 1948. This notification exempted fertilizers from sales tax, and it was immaterial that Chilean nitrate could also be used for purposes other than as a fertilizer.

Issue 2: Classification of Chilean Nitrate as a Mineral
The court deemed this issue to be purely academic and did not provide an answer. The question involved determining the origin of Chilean nitrate sold by the assessee without substantial evidence. The court found that necessary findings of fact were not given by the Sales Tax Authorities, thus rendering the question unanswerable.

Issue 3: Classification of Chilean Nitrate as a Fertilizer or Chemical
The court concluded that Chilean nitrate is both a fertilizer and a chemical, and can be termed a chemical fertilizer. However, the court emphasized that the crucial consideration was whether Chilean nitrate was a fertilizer as per the first notification. The court held that Chilean nitrate fell within the category of exempted fertilizers and was not included within the subsequent entry "chemicals of all kinds" until the notification of 1956 clarified the position.

Issue 4: Interpretation of the Term "Fertilizer" in the Relevant Notification
The court addressed whether the term "fertilizer" in Notification No. ST-119/X-928-1948 included "chemical fertilizer." The court found the term "fertilizer" to be broad and inclusive of all types of fertilizers, including chemical fertilizers. The court rejected the narrower interpretation adopted by the Judge (Revisions) that excluded chemical fertilizers from the term "fertilizer." The court applied the principle of statutory interpretation, Generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning a general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Thus, the term "fertilizer" in the notification was deemed to include chemical fertilizers, exempting Chilean nitrate from sales tax.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions in favor of the assessee:
1. The assessee was not liable to pay sales tax on Chilean nitrate as it was exempt under the relevant notification.
2. The court did not answer the question on the classification of Chilean nitrate as a mineral due to lack of evidence.
3. Chilean nitrate was classified as a fertilizer and a chemical, but primarily as a fertilizer under the notification.
4. The term "fertilizer" in the notification included chemical fertilizers, exempting Chilean nitrate from sales tax.

The department was ordered to pay the assessee's costs, assessed at Rs. 100, and the case was directed to be reconsidered in conformity with this judgment.