9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in groundnut, tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil, tobacco seed oil-cake, neem seed oil etc., in the Guntur district. Some of them were assessed by the concerned Commercial Tax Officers to tax in relation to the turnover in the goods mentioned above for certain years and the taxes so assessed were also collected. In some cases. the Commercial Tax Officers concerned issued notices proposing to make final assessment for certain years and provisional assessment for the year 1969-70 while in some of those cases the petitioners made provisional payments pursuant to the assessments. At that stage, they filed these writ petitions praying for the issuance of either writs of certiorari to quash the orders made by the Commercial Tax Officers concerned, assessing them in relation to turnover in groundnuts, groundnut kernel, tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil, tobacco seed oil-cake and neem seed oil during the relevant years and to direct refund of the amount that was already paid by them pursuant to the alleged illegal assessments, or writs of prohibition interdicting the concerned Commercial Tax Officers from assessing them to tax on the turnover relating to the aforesaid goods for the assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliefs prayed for by the petitioners, that the constitutionality of item 6 of Schedule III of the Act is not open to question as it is perfectly valid, that the exemption envisaged by item 7 of Schedule IV is available only in the case of raw tobacco, tobacco leaf and the products of tobacco leaf but not tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil or tobacco seed oil-cake, that it is also not correct to say that tobacco seed oil or neem seed oil are exempted from liability to pay tax and that the assessments made in respect of the goods referred to above are, therefore, unassailable. Points Nos. 1 and 2 set out supra have not been pressed by Sri Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reason that point No. 1 is now covered by the decision in Radhakrishna and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 320. rendered by a Division Bench of this court; and G.O. Ms. No. 581 dated 14th March, 1960, granted exemption only in relation to purchase by the Sarvodaya Sangh, Warangal, of oil-seeds used in the manufacture of soap and not to purchases of the commodity in general. So, the only question that survives for consideration is whether tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents. Roots, stem, stalks, flowers and seeds are as much parts of the plant as its leaves since a typical plant consists of all these parts and branches and fruits in addition. So, if by "tobacco" is meant all the parts of the plant known by that name and not merely the leaves thereof, it is difficult to comprehend how the seeds developed in the flower portion of the plant could be any the less tobacco. Tobacco is the name given to the plant as a whole of which the seeds form a part and so seeds also constitute tobacco, of course, only so long as they remain attached to the plant. We are fortified in the view expressed above by the definition of the term "tobacco" found against item 4 of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and to which our attention was invited by the learned Principal Government Pleader for the purpose of saying that tobacco seed cannot be considered a product of tobacco. "Tobacco" is defined there as "any form of tobacco, whether cured or uncured and whether manufactured or not, and includes the leaf, stalks, and stems of the tobacco plant but does not include any part of a tobacco plant while still attached to the earth". It is true that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these goods should be deemed to be "products" of tobacco. It is, on the other hand, contended by the learned Government Pleader that even seeds cannot be classed as a product of "tobacco" and as oil and cake are obtained from the seeds and not tobacco, none of these goods is entitled to the exemption contemplated in item 7 of Schedule IV. This argument would certainly be tenable if by "tobacco" is meant only the leaves used for rolling cigars and cigarettes or making snuff and the like as seed is not a product of the leaf but of the plant itself. But when it was already seen that the term "tobacco" signifies the plant in its entirety and not merely its leaves, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the seeds, which are admittedly derived from the plant going by the name "tobacco", are not a "product" of that plant. That the term "tobacco" and its products should not be understood as meaning leaves alone is made clear in Krishnaiah Setty Sons v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer[1963] 14 S.T.C. 1., in which a Division Bench of this court pointed out that "crushed tobacco stalks" come within the purview of the expression "tobacco and all its products". The fact that with a view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in common parlance or is understood otherwise than as a product of the tobacco plant. The yield or what is obtained from a tree or plant is called its produce and such being the case, it is difficult to discountenance the contention that the seeds do constitute a product of the plant tobacco. We fail to understand why seeds should not be regarded as a product of the tobacco plant when stalks were found to come within the purview of tobacco and its products in Krishnaiah Setty Sons v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer[1963] 14 S.T.C. 1. We may take for instance tobacco leaves which by themselves do not comprise the plant and are only parts thereof. If "seeds" cannot be classed as a product of "tobacco", leaves of this plant would also share the same fate and cannot be regarded as a product of the tobacco plant. But it is not pretended that tobacco leaves are exigible to tax and are not exempted under item 7 of Schedule IV of the Act. We are unable to find any intelligible or rational basis for drawing a distinction between tobacco leaves and tobacco seeds to justify the contention that though the former are products of "tobacco" the latter are not. Seeds are as much a product of tobac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the enactment or the rules validly made thereunder. In a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the words of the provision. If the taxpayer is within the plain terms of the exemption, he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the statute or rule or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different, but that is not the position here." Then their Lordships referred to the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Salomon and Co.[1897] A.C. 22 at p. 38.: "Intention of the Legislature is a common but very slippery phrase which, popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied in positive, enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which are obtained by subjecting the seed to a mechanical process and are consequently the products of the seed rather than of the plant. We do not, therefore, experience any difficulty in concluding that tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed oil-cake are neither "tobacco" nor its "products" to be entitled to the exemption envisaged in item 7 of Schedule IV of the Act. What follows from the foregoing discussion is that the turnover relating to tobacco seed alone, which we held to be a product of the plant "tobacco", is exempt from tax and that oil and oil-cake, which are only products of the seed and not the plant, are not entitled to any such exemption for the assessment years mentioned in the respective petitions. In the result, therefore, writs of certiorari quashing the orders of the Commercial Tax Officers concerned (R-2) assessing the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1455 to 1458, 1463, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1693 to 1696 and 1701 to 1704 of 1968 to tax on the turnover relating to tobacco seeds for the years mentioned in those petitions will accordingly issue and the petitioners in those cases will be entitled to a refund of the tax that has been collected from them in relation to tobacco s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
