1976 (9) TMI 158 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of turnover of foodgrains at different tax rates under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 based on interpretation of the proviso to section 3(1).

Analysis:
The tax revision case involved a dispute over the assessment of turnover of certain foodgrains at different tax rates under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Initially, the turnover of specific foodgrains was assessed at 1 per cent as per the proviso to section 3(1) of the Act. However, the assessment was later reopened, and the turnover was reassessed at 2 per cent on the grounds that these items did not fall within the scope of the proviso. The dealer objected to this reassessment, but all authorities, including the Tribunal, upheld the 2 per cent assessment, leading to the tax revision case.

The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Act, which listed various foodgrains eligible for a concessional tax rate of 1 per cent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal contended that only the dehusked grains could be considered as products of specific grains mentioned in the proviso, and since the proviso did not explicitly mention these products, they were not eligible for the concessional rate. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation.

The High Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana, where it was established that a change in identity of goods occurs when paddy is dehusked to produce rice. However, in the case of the foodgrains in question (samai, thinai, cholam, and kudiraivali), there was no distinction in ordinary parlance between the grains in husked and dehusked conditions. Commercially, these grains were considered the same commodity, indicating that they fell within the scope of the proviso to section 3(1) and were eligible for the 1 per cent tax rate.

Additionally, the Tribunal had noted that the Government had exempted the sales of these items from tax for a specific period but not for the relevant assessment year. The High Court clarified that the grant or refusal of exemption by the Government did not impact the applicability of the concessional tax rate under the proviso to section 3(1). Consequently, the High Court allowed the tax revision case, set aside the revised assessment at 2 per cent, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 concerning the tax rate applicable to certain foodgrains and emphasized that the ordinary commercial understanding of the grains in question determined their eligibility for the concessional tax rate.