9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opra on the ground that the purchase was the last purchase within the State and tax was leviable at that point on copra under item 5 of Schedule 111 of the Act read with section 6 of the Act. These assessments were confirmed on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner are illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and opposed to the provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act as they were in force during the periods of assessment are set out hereunder: Section 6: "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 5, the sales or purchases of declared goods by a dealer shall be liable to tax at the rate, and only at the point of sale or purchase specified against each in the Third Schedule on his turnover of such sales or purchases for each year irrespective of the quantum of his turnover in such goods........." Schedule 111 consists of several items. The relevant item is item 5, which is in the following terms: "Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax Coconuts. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied, namely, that the particular commodity must be an oil-seed and it must be used for human consumption. In this case it is contended that though copra is used for human consumption, it is not an oil-seed. The argument is that a seed is one which can be sown which will on sowing germinate. Copra, which is normally prepared by taking out the water in the coconut and drying it, is incapable of germinating and hence it is not a seed. In this connection, the decision of the Madras High Court in City Oil Mill v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1970] 25 S.T.C. 33. was relied on. It was held that though copra was a kernel it had lost the property of a seed and, therefore, could not be considered to be an oil-seed within the meaning of section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The decision of the Madras High Court in Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras[1968] 21 S.T.C. 41., where it was held that coconuts were not oil-seeds was followed. On the other hand, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar[1973] 31 S.T.C. 321., it was held that coconuts are oil-seeds as defined in section 3-AA(1)(vi) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The decision of the Mysore High Court in Kasturi Ses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed coconut' yields substantial quantity of oil and such oil is extensively used for human consumption in industry and in the manufacture of soaps, hair-oils and cosmetics. So if coconut is taken to mean only 'dried coconut' there can be no dispute that it is an 'oil-seed' within the meaning of section 14(vi) of the Central Act." At page 120, they referred to the observation of the Mysore High Court in Kasturi Seshagiri Pal Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara[1961] 12 S.T.C. 629., that both coconut and copra are commodities from which oil can be extracted. Coconut oil is extracted both from coconut and copra although coconut oil is generally extracted from dried copra. Again, at another part of the judgment, they say "admittedly dry cocounts yield oil and it is not disputed that it is an oil-seed". It appears, therefore, from these observations that the learned Judges proceeded on the footing that dried coconuts or copra are oilseeds and proceeded to consider whether watery coconuts are also oil-seeds. The view expressed in some decisions that copra is an oil-seed within the meaning of section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act commends itself to us in preference to the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an oil-seed within the meaning of section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and hence the explanation to Schedule 111 by which copra is included in the expression "coconut" which forms item 5 of Schedule 111 is not inconsistent with section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act or section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Sri Venkatappaiah Sastry, the learned Government Pleader, contended that even assuming that copra is not an oil-seed, there is nothing preventing the State Legislature from providing that tax may be levied on this commodity at any point of its sale or purchase. He submitted that no doubt under section 14 read with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, in the case of declared goods, tax shall not be levied at more than one stage of sale or purchase and shall not exceed 3 per cent of the sale or purchase thereof. But this does not prevent the State from providing for levy of tax at a single point in respect of goods other than declared goods. The legislature is entitled to pass a legislation with respect to tax on sale or purchase of goods under entry 54, List II, Schedule VII, of the Constitution. In making such a legislation it is open to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries relating thereto shall be inserted, namely: "5.A. Watery At the point of last purchase in the 2 paise coconuts. State during the period commencing in the on the 1st August, 1963, and ending rupee." with the 31st March, 1965. It was, therefore, submitted that the Third Schedule was amended with retrospective effect from 1st August, 1963. Hence, item 5, namely, coconuts of all varieties, should be substituted as from 1st August, 1963. It was then argued that copra is not included in the expression "coconuts of all varieties" and hence copra cannot be taxed at the point of last purchase under this schedule. We see no substance in this contention. It is seen that it is only with regard to section 6(b) of the amending Act, which introduces a new item 5-A, namely, watery coconuts, that it is specifically stated that tax is leviable at the point of last purchase during the period commencing from 1st August, 1963, and ending with 31st March, 1965. As far as section 6(a) of the amending Act, which deals with substitution of -coconuts of all varieties" in item 5 is concerned, there is no such provision making it retrospective in operation. As far as the substitution of item 5 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
