9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (2) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total and taxable turnover for the year 1959-60, which should be based on the turnover of actual sales of arecanut the petitioner had made during 1958-59. The notice wound up by a warning that in default of submission of return as required, his turnover would be estimated to the best of judgment at Rs. 6 lakhs and he would be provisionally assessed for the year 1959-60. Certain correspondence followed between the petitioner and the Commercial Tax Officer, in which the petitioner maintained that he being a producer of arecanuts which constituted an agricultural produce, sales thereof were not taxable, while, on the other hand, the department stressed the position that, since the amendment of the Act in 1959 introducing explanation (1), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clearing, grading, sorting or drying. According to the petitioner all that is done to the arecanuts produced by him is to remove the husk from them and by whatever name this removal of the husk is called, it is not a physical, chemical or other process within the meaning of the first explanation to make the arecanuts fall outside the scope of the proviso. Unfortunately in this case the petitioner has come too early to this Court. Neither the petitioner has placed before the department the necessary facts, nor the department has had an opportunity to assess the facts with reference to which the two grounds urged for the petitioner in this Court can properly be decided. There is, however, no difficulty in pointing out that an agriculturist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the conclusion that the petitioner is a dealer, it is for the petitioner to establish to its satisfaction that the aggregate amount for which he sold the arecanuts is not turnover as defined under the Act, because it falls within the scope of the proviso. It is contended for the petitioner that the Commercial Tax Officer has already prejudged the two questions. I do not think so. The replies of the Commercial Tax Officer will have to be understood In the light of the communication sent by the petitioner to him. In these communications, the petitioner did not take up the position that the arecanuts sold by him underwent only husking and no other treatment. In the circumstances, as and when the petitioner flies a return for the year in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
