1972 (8) TMI 129 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Violation of proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act regarding sale of mung and chana in the shape of mung dal and besan.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act

The case involved a registered dealer who purchased mung, chana, biri, and peas with the declaration that he would resell them in Orissa to be exempt from sales tax. The dealer later converted some mung and biri into dal and chana and peas into besan. The assessing officer raised a demand under the proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) for converting the goods purchased on declarations into dal or besan. The Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the assessment, stating that the dealer attracted liability under the proviso. The key issue was whether the conversion of goods violated the declaration terms.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "Taxable Turnover" and Proviso

Section 5(2)(A) of the Act defines "taxable turnover," which includes sales to a registered dealer intended for resale in Orissa. The proviso states that if such goods are used for other purposes, the price of those goods should be included in the taxable turnover. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the declaration to avoid tax liability, highlighting the single point taxation system under the Act.

Issue 3: Determination of Violation in Declaration

The court modified the question to include biri and peas in addition to mung and chana. It analyzed whether selling mung dal and biri dal could be considered as selling mung and biri, and whether selling peas besan and chana besan could be deemed as selling peas and chana. The court considered commercial sense and use of the goods to determine if the conversion altered the identity of the goods sufficiently to violate the declaration terms.

Issue 4: Application of Precedents and Commercial Understanding

The court referred to various cases from different High Courts and the Supreme Court to understand similar disputes involving the interpretation of goods and their commercial identity. It emphasized the need for a common-sense approach and considered whether the converted goods maintained substantial identity with the original goods based on their use and commercial understanding.

Conclusion:
The court held that selling mung dal and biri dal did not violate the declaration terms as they were considered the same goods in commercial sense. However, selling peas and chana as besan constituted a violation due to the significant change in form and use of the goods. The judgment directed both parties to bear their costs and answered the reference accordingly.

---