9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 1971. 2.. The petitioner, which is a company, is a dealer carrying on business in cashewnuts, chemical, fertilisers, copper sulphate, gunny bags and other commodities. The petitioner is also having its cashew factory and coffee curing works. For the period from 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971 the petitioner-company declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 3,85,90,385.96 and Rs. 71,50,695.93 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the declared turnover and estimated the same at higher figures. In this petition, however, we are concerned with that part of the turnover relating to the purchase of raw cashewnuts that has been taxed under section 6 of the Act. The assessing authority has determined the value of the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read "cashew and its kernel" in the Third Schedule to the Act. It was with effect from 1st October, 1957 only single point purchase tax was leviable under section 5(3)(b) of the Act. By the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970 (Act No. 9 of 1970) the said item 11 in the Third Schedule was omitted and the same was inserted as item 88 in the Second Schedule to the Act prescribing levy on the first or earliest dealers liable to pay tax under section 5(3) of the Act. However, item 88 also read as "cashew and its kernel". By the same amending Act No. 9 of 1970, explanation VI was added to the Second Schedule, which reads as under: "Explanation VI-Where a tax has been levied in respect of cashew under item 88, the kernel pressed out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, has contended that cashew and its kernel are not two different commodities, but in substance only one commodity and therefore, the levy of purchase tax in respect of purchase turnover of cashew of Rs. 35,24,149.54 under section 6 of the Act is not justified. 7.. The thrust of Mr. Srinivasan's contention is based upon the fact that "cashew and its kernel" are mentioned under the same heading in the Second Schedule, and the legislative intent must therefore be to treat the said commodities as one commodity for the purpose of levy of tax. He further contended that the subsequent amendments effecting bifurcation of item 88 into two items as 88 and 88A by Act No. 7 of 1981 and insertion of explanation VI to the Second Schedule under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany v. Commercial Tax Officer, Srikakulam [1979] 44 STC I in which it has been held that "cashew and its kernel" cannot be construed as two different commercial commodities and are not separately taxable. 10.. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has no doubt referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.V.C. Factory's case [1953] 4 STC 205 (SC) and Hajee Abdul Shukoor's case [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC), but did not follow them on the ground that the observation of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as conclusive pronouncement on the question. But with due respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It appears to us that the Supreme Court has taken a definite view on the question that the raw cashewnut be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
