9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,861.35 for the said years respectively totalling Rs. 28,863.48 and the appellants were directed to pay the amount by 9th April, 1962. The tax was for their sales of cane sugar-candy and palm sugar-candy, which are the commodities manufactured and sold by the appellants. The appellants moved applications under section 12(2) of the 1954 Act for review of the orders of assessment, but the applications were summarily rejected as, it was said, they were not in conformity with rules 38 and 44(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954. The appellants were thereafter served with three certificates for the said total amount of Rs. 28,863.48 in respect of the aforesaid periods. The appellants thereupon, on service of a notice of demand, moved this court by an application under article 226(1) of the Constitution and rule nisi was issued on 5th September, 1962, calling upon the respondents, the Commercial Tax Officer, Shyam Bazar Charge, as also the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, to show cause why appropriate writs should not issue quashing the certificates and also directing the respondents to cancel or forbear from giving effect to the same. The appellants contended, inter alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. Mr. Bikash Chandra Sen, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-appellants, submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in holding that the appellants were liable to sales tax even though it was held that sugar and sugar-candy are different mercantile commodities. He submitted that by the subsequent legislation sugar was brought within the ambit of taxation under the 1954 Act, but sugar-candy was kept outside its ambit. Accordingly, the learned Judge should have held that sales of sugar-candy could not be subject to taxation. He further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellants to rectify the defects before their applications for review were rejected. He further submitted that under the Central Sales Tax Act after 1st October, 1958, tax not more than 2 per cent on sugar could be imposed even if sugar-candy is accepted to be sugar. Accordingly, the assessment of sales tax at 3 per cent was unsustainable. These contentions have been disputed by Mr. Chakravarty, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the tax authorities inconsistent position appears to have been taken in view of the judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugar' as defined in item No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944". Item 8 of the First Schedule to the said Act defined "sugar" as follows: "Sugar means any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent sucrose." The Gujarat High Court held: "The legislature, by using the words 'any form of sugar' has intended to cover sugar of any variety in whatever form it may be found and by whatever name it may be called." It was accordingly held that in patasha, harda and alchidana sugar is manifest and the said commodities accordingly were exempted from sales tax. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Gujarat High Court and both the cases have been reported in 19 Sales Tax Cases 24. The Supreme Court observed: "It is, therefore, manifest that patasha, harda and alchidana are only different forms of refined sugar with requisite sucrose contents." The court further observed: "We are accordingly of the opinion that the word 'sugar' in item No. 47 (of the Bombay Act) is intended to include within its ambit all forms of sugar, that is to say, sugar of any shape or texture, colour or density and by whatever name it is called. The qualify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but a different form of sugar, with sugar as its predominant if not the only ingredient. Further the historical background of the legislation leading to the exemption of sugar from sales tax for purpose of avoidance of double taxation from 14th December, 1957, and the definition of "sugar" in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, all these facts need be considered in interpreting "sugar" in the sales tax law. These legislations lay down the above minimum content of ninety per cent sucrose, while in the case of "candy", which is before us, there is no other ingredient except sugar. There can therefore be little doubt that sugar-candy is sugar merely in another form though they may be different commercial commodities when put up to sale. We are, accordingly, unable to agree with the decision in Gopal Chandra's case(1963) 67 C.W.N. 1102. that "sugar" as defined in the 1941 Act or in the 1954 Act does not include "sugar-candy". This was also the position adopted by the Commercial Tax Officer when he treated sugar-candy in his assessment orders-both cane sugar-candy and palm sugar-candy-as nothing but sugar. A distinction was sought to be made by Mr. Sen contending that palmcandy wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by section 26 of the 1954 Act, the Government exempted from the operation of the said Act with effect from 14th December, 1957, "sugar", being a notified commodity within the meaning of clause (i) of that section. Under the said clause (i), "sugar" is a notified commodity in respect whereof duties of excise are leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. This Act of 1957 was intended to provide for levy and collection of additional duties of excise on certain goods and for the distribution of a part of the net proceeds thereof among the States, according to the principle of distribution recommended by the Finance Commission. "Sugar" in the said Act has the same meaning assigned to it by item No. 1 (formerly 8) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as having more than 90 per cent sucrose content at 105 centigrade. These provisions indicate, as we have already seen, the necessity of associating the definition of sugar in the Central Act with the State Acts. Thus "sugar" was exempted from payment of tax with effect from 14th December, 1957, so that for sales of sugar-candy by the appellants during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
