9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was unsuccessful in this regard. The Sales Tax Tribunal also denied exemption which was in respect of the sales of the aforesaid commodities. The Sales Tax Tribunal held that the mini rice machines sold for Rs. 48,965 could not be granted exemption because only such goods are exempted from taxation under Notification No. ST-2783/X-902(60)-59 dated 1st June, 1963, which are sold by an institution in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay. It found that the certificate produced by the assessee has been given by the Khadi Gramodyog Commission, Lucknow. As regards the sales of ghuria chalnas also known as churia chalnas, the Tribunal found that dust and foreign elements not connected with the produce are sieved with the help of chalnas. On this basis it found that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. ST-3297/X-950(1)-58 dated 9th June, 1964. It further found that the chalnas had not been sold by the assessee to the farmers for utilisation in agricultural operations but to Krishi Utpadan Samitis for sieving dust, etc. It found that these chalnas were commonly used by dal and flour mills for si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Director of Commission at Lucknow issued the certificate certifying that the appellant was entitled to exemption from sales tax. The High Court held that in these circumstances, the assessee was entitled to exemption. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption on the ground that the certificate had not been issued by the Commission from Bombay but from Lucknow. The learned standing counsel has very strongly urged that the certificate in the instant case which has been issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow, which stood to the following effect: "This is to certify that M/s. Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog, 64, Moti Bhawan, Collectorganj, Kanpur, was our recognised fabricators for the manufacturing and supplying of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower for P.C.P.I. Industries from 1971 to 31st March, 1981." Was not a certificate on the basis of which the assessee was entitled to claim exemption. The relevant notification dated 1st June, 1963, No. ST-2783/X-902(60)-59 runs as follows: "In exercise of the powers under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, has not been specified in the notification. When the Commission states that the assessee was the recognised fabricator of the Commission it was in effect granting the certificate required by the 1st June, 1963, notification. The Khadi and Village Industries Commission has been set up under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. Its function are to be found in section 15 of the Act as under: "Among other functions, section 15(2)(E) provides that it is to maintain or assist in the maintenance of the institutions for the development of Khadi and Village Industries." And under clause (h) it is provided: "For ensuring the genuineness of and for granting certificates to producers of, or dealers in, khadi or the products of any village industry." It is thus clear that the certificate under section 15(2)(h) is issued to ensure the genuineness of the product of village industries. Reading the notification of 1st June, 1963, with the aforesaid provision, the nature of the certificate contemplated becomes clear. The certificate shows that the assessee's product is a genuine product of a village industry. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench held that the notification shows that the intention was to divide all the agricultural implements into two divisions, viz., (i) the implements driven by human or animal power and (ii) mechanised implements or those driven otherwise than by human and animal power. It has further found that the idea seems to have been to exempt all agricultural implements driven by human or animal power and to tax only those agricultural implements which are worked otherwise than by human or animal power. This case was followed in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Steel Engineering Co. 1978 UPTC 675. In this case it was held that sugarcane planters and pulled by bullocks were agricultural implements and were exempt from taxation under the notification. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the fact that a particular implement is not mentioned in the notification is not decisive of the matter and what has to be decided in each case is whether the implement in question is or is not an agricultural implement. The assessee had filed a copy of letter from the Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Research Testing and Training Centre, C.S.A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufactured by the assessee. The learned counsel urges that the expert bodies have recognised the assessee's chalnas as agricultural implements and the fact that some of the chalnas are used by the Krishi Utpadan Samiti would not make the chalnas manufactured by the assessee as any other thing other than the agricultural implement. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC). The question in that case was whether charcoal was included in the word "coal " specified in entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The Supreme Court observed that "the result emerging from these decisions is that while construing the word 'coal' in entry I of Part III of Schedule II, the test that could be applied is what would be the meaning which persons dealing with coal and consumers purchasing it as fuel would give to that word. A sales tax statute, being one levying a tax on goods, must, in the absence of a technical term or a term of science or art, be presumed to have used an ordinary term as 'coal' according to the meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
