9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waste and is exempted from taxation under the Act? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, can be applied to reopen the completed assessment? The Assam Board of Revenue considered the subject-matter of the three questions in cases Nos. 29 STA/70 to 38 STA/70 on March 11, 1970, and held that cotton waste is different from cotton and cotton yarn waste is different from cotton yarn. The Board stated to have followed the earlier decision. The judgment of the Board on March 11, 1970, is not made available in the record. The counsel for the parties have not produced the judgment before this Court. Section 7 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947), reads as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s different from cotton yarn and cotton waste is different from cotton. These two goods, the counsel urged, can be sold, can be purchased in the markets. Therefore, his argument was cotton waste is a separate commodity from cotton and similarly cotton yarn waste is a separate commodity from cotton yarn and cited two decisions [1988] 71 STC 362 (Gauhati); [1988] 1 GLJ NOC 25 (Modern Candle Works v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Gauhati), and [1972] 29 STC 730 (P H) (Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd v. State of Haryana). The question in the instant references is not whether there can be a business in cotton waste or in cotton yarn waste, whether the two commodities can be sold and purchased. The precise question in these references is far differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision to understand the ramification of the two expressions "cotton" and "cotton waste". We see in the case of [1978] 41 STC 394 (SC) (Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of A.P.), various tests have been laid by the Supreme Court in identifying the commodities. The question in that case related to paddy, rice, parched rice and puffed rice and how to identify the four commodities. The first test the Supreme Court laid down (a) unless the language of the taxing statute was absolutely clear obviously unfair interpretation against the assessee should not be adopted by the courts, (b) when two interpretations of the provision are possible, adopt the principle which favours the assessee, (c) in interpreting a word the history of the legislat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as warring groups. Again in [1941] AC 1 (United Australia v. Barclay's Bank Ltd.), it is held the ghost of tax dodgers in that case were exorcised. These principles have been replayed after the decision of [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 649 (McDowell Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer), once again but we are not informed of the result of the replay of these principles. For the purpose of these references we adopt what is referred to as commonsense rule of interpretation or as understood in English language, we hold the common man understands cotton waste is covered by cotton and cotton yarn waste is covered by the words cotton yarn. The first and the second questions for the aforesaid reasons are answered in affirmative in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
