1974 (7) TMI 114 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether gudakhu falls under the definition of "tobacco" for tax exemption under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a question referred by the Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, regarding whether gudakhu is covered by the expression 'tobacco' as defined in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and thus exempted from tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The opposite party, a registered dealer, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of gudakhu, and the issue arose due to non-payment of taxes on gudakhu sales for a specific period. The Sales Tax Officer initially held gudakhu as taxable, but the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal later annulled the assessments, leading to the reference being made at the petitioner's instance.

The gudakhu in question was produced from tobacco along with other constituents like lime, molasses, gerumati, and flavoring essence, with tobacco content being less than 50%. The pivotal issue was whether gudakhu was taxable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act during the relevant period, which would also impact the tax liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The case referenced historical analysis from a previous judgment regarding notifications on gudakhu taxation and focused on a specific notification from June 1967, which substituted the entry for 'tobacco' in the sales tax schedule.

The definition of 'tobacco' in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was crucial in determining the taxability of gudakhu. The comprehensive definition of 'tobacco' covered any form of tobacco, whether cured or uncured, and included various parts of the tobacco plant. The definition of 'manufacture' in relation to tobacco encompassed processes like preparing cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products, but did not explicitly mention gudakhu. However, the inclusive nature of the definition and judicial precedents highlighted that products like zarda and dental snuff, containing significant tobacco content, were considered 'manufactured tobacco' and fell under the tax exemption.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that gudakhu, being a form of tobacco with similar characteristics to hookah tobacco, should be construed as 'manufactured tobacco' and therefore exempt from taxation under the relevant Acts. The judgment aligned with previous decisions on similar products like dental snuff falling under the definition of 'tobacco.' The Court answered the reference in the affirmative, confirming that gudakhu is covered by the definition of 'tobacco' and is exempted from tax under the applicable Acts.

In conclusion, the Court discharged the reference with costs and upheld the tax exemption for gudakhu based on its classification as 'manufactured tobacco,' in line with the statutory definitions and judicial interpretations provided in the judgment.