1986 (12) TMI 352 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay sales tax on wheat bran (chokar).
2. Whether wheat bran (chokar) is classified as cattle feed.
3. Interpretation and effect of various notifications on sales tax exemption for wheat bran.
4. Precedence of Hindi versus English versions of notifications in case of inconsistency.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Sales Tax on Wheat Bran (Chokar):
The primary issue is whether the petitioners are liable to pay sales tax on wheat bran. The court examined Notification No. 14547 dated 26th December 1977, which exempted "cattle feed and poultry feed" from sales tax. The State argued that a retroactive notification dated 9th March 1978 (No. 3320) made "bran" exigible to tax, thus nullifying the exemption. The court held that the exemption was withdrawn only on 29th June 1985 by Notification No. S.O. 611, effective from 1st July 1985. Therefore, wheat bran remained exempt from sales tax until 30th June 1985. The court rejected the argument that the retroactive notification of 9th March 1978 nullified the exemption, emphasizing that taxing notifications do not override exemption notifications.

2. Classification of Wheat Bran (Chokar) as Cattle Feed:
The court examined whether wheat bran is classified as cattle feed. The petitioners provided substantial evidence, including letters from government officials and affidavits from industry stakeholders, affirming that wheat bran is primarily used as cattle feed. The respondents did not contest these claims. The court referenced previous judgments, such as Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Narain Das Barey Lal, which supported the classification of bran as cattle feed. Consequently, the court concluded that wheat bran is indeed cattle feed and thus exempt from sales tax under the notification.

3. Interpretation and Effect of Notifications:
The court analyzed the relevant notifications to determine their impact on the sales tax exemption for wheat bran. Notification No. 14547 dated 26th December 1977 exempted cattle feed from sales tax. Notification No. 3322 dated 9th March 1978 added an explanation to the term "cattle feed," but the court held that this explanation did not restrict the meaning of the term. The court emphasized that an explanation in a notification cannot restrict or narrow down the scope of the provision it explains. The court also noted that the exemption was explicitly withdrawn only by Notification No. S.O. 611 dated 29th June 1985, effective from 1st July 1985.

4. Precedence of Hindi vs. English Versions of Notifications:
The court addressed the issue of whether the Hindi or English version of a notification should prevail in case of inconsistency. The court referred to Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, which states that the authoritative text of all orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws shall be in the English language. The court held that the English version of the notification must prevail over the Hindi version. The court also referenced several judgments supporting this view, including Saghir Ahamed v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa. The court concluded that even if there was a divergence between the Hindi and English versions, the English version would prevail.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned orders (annexures) that imposed sales tax on wheat bran. The court held that wheat bran is classified as cattle feed and was exempt from sales tax until 30th June 1985. The court also emphasized that the English version of the notification prevails in case of inconsistency with the Hindi version. There was no order as to costs.