2001 (9) TMI 1106 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions for exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 604
2. Authority of regulatory bodies to question labelling accuracy
3. Evidence requirement for establishing labelling genuineness

Interpretation of conditions for exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 604:
The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of conditions for exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 604. The petitioner, a dealer in agricultural seeds, claimed exemption based on the seeds being certified and truthfully labelled. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the petitioner failed to prove both conditions. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal misinterpreted the Government Order and ignored a clarification allowing exemption for either certified or truthfully labelled seeds. However, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need to establish both conditions for exemption.

Authority of regulatory bodies to question labelling accuracy:
The court examined Rule 7 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, which allows regulatory authorities to question the accuracy of labelling declarations if they have credible doubts. The court emphasized that authorities must ensure the accuracy of labelling information, especially in unopened containers. Rejecting the petitioner's argument that authorities cannot question labelling accuracy, the court highlighted the importance of protecting public interest, particularly farmers and agriculturists relying on seed quality.

Evidence requirement for establishing labelling genuineness:
The petitioner contended that authorities should accept labelling declarations without questioning their accuracy. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not provide evidence to establish labelling genuineness at any stage of the proceedings. As a result, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no exception could be taken to the lack of evidence presented. Ultimately, the court dismissed the tax revision case, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.