9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the name of polish or rice bran. According to the facts given in the statement of the case and in the revisional order, the rice bran is usually sold by the dealers as cattle fodder. It is also processed by the oil-mills for extracting oil. The assessee claimed that rice bran was exempt from sales tax by virtue of Notification No. ST-3471/X dated 16th July, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer repelled this claim. He held that rice bran was taxable as an unclassified item. This view was upheld in appeal. The assessee took the dispute in revision. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, held that rice bran is the inner husk of rice. It will be covered by the term bhusi as used in the relevant notification and so it will be exempt from tax. The notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oil-cake. Evidently, if a commodity is not bhusi, chuni, chhilka, chokar, cotton seed, gowar or oil-cake, it will none the less be cattle fodder depending upon its characteristics and user. For the assessee reliance was placed upon Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanpur v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur[1974] 33 S.T.C. 343. (Civil Mise. Writ Petition No. 2916 of 1973 decided on 12th November, 1973). In that case, it was held that de-oiled rice bran was cattle fodder. On the strength of this decision the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the question referred to us requires reframing. According to him the question should be reframed as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, rice bran was cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fodder even though it is not bhusi". The learned counsel for the assessee urged that if we refuse to reframe the question, the position would be that even though the assessee raised this question specifically before the Judge (Revisions), the assessee will now be precluded from having a finding on that point. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd.[1968] 68 I.T.R. 630 at 637 (S.C.). , it was held that after the High Court decides a reference the Appellate Tribunal has to decide the appeal again after rehearing the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the observations of the High Court and according to law. These observations are equally applicable to a reference under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Section 11(6) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in this list. Therefore, the notification dated 7th June, 1948, which exempted rice bran from payment of sales tax stood superseded. This view is reaffirmed by the second clause of the notification dated 31st March, 1956, namely, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that with effect from 1st April, 1956, the goods specified in List II hereunder shall alone be exempt from payment of tax. Obviously, commodities which are not mentioned in List II will no longer be exempt from tax with effect from 1st April, 1956, and onwards. It cannot be held that rice bran was exempt from sales tax by virtue of the notification of 1948. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, in favour of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
