9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication dated 16th July, 1956, was accepted, and this part of the turnover was exempted from sales tax. It appears that on or about 19th February, 1973, the Sales Tax Commissioner of this State issued a circular to all the assessing authorities indicating that oil-cakes, which are used for further extraction of oil and are not used as cattle fodder, are not exempt from sales tax. On the basis of this circular, the Sales Tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for reopening the assessment for the year 1968-69. After hearing the petitioner he held that the turnover of oil-cakes of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,91,261.48, which represented the sale of oil-cakes by the petitioner to Prayag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , etc., mentioned in this entry are exempt only in so far as they are included in the term "cattle fodder". In other words, these articles are commonly used as cattle fodder and, for that reason, they were included in the entry, which primarily dealt with cattle fodder so as to exempt it from sales tax. Even if the interpretation placed upon the entry by the learned standing counsel be accepted, the position is that all those articles which can, in common parlance, be identified as chuni, bhusi, chhilka, chokar, cotton seed, gowar and oil-cake will be deemed included within the term "cattle fodder" as used in this notification, and will, as such, be exempt from sales tax. In our opinion, when the notification includes, inter alia, oil-cak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the notification dated 16th July, 1956. The fact that a part of the production of the petitioner goes to a firm which in its turn does not immediately put it to the common use, namely, as cattle fodder, will not change the nature or character of the product made by the petitioner. The product which was oil-cake at the time of the production at the factory of the petitioner would continue to retain its identity, no matter what use a prospective purchaser may put it to. Similar question arose in Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur[1974] 33 S.T.C. 343; 1974 U.P.T.C. 26. There the question was whether de-oiled rice bran was covered by the expression "cattle fodder". The evidence disclosed that general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
