9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax brought to the notice of Deputy Commissioners/Joint Directors/Sales Tax Officers, etc., a judgment dated July 29, 1985 of honourable Supreme Court reported in [1985] 60 STC 80; 1985 UPTC 1141 (Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner) in which it was held that the coconut with or without husk was neither fresh fruit nor vegetable and desired them to act accordingly. Vide second letter dated January 4, 1990, copy of which is annexure No. 3 to the petition, Commissioner of Sales Tax, after referring to his aforesaid letter dated December 15, 1988, informed the aforesaid officers the decision of the Government taken after considering the representations made by the various business organisations that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nical meaning of the terms or expressions but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression is defined in the statute then it must be understood as per the said definition but in the absence of any such definition the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. In this case neither the term fresh fruit nor the term coconut has been defined in the enactment. No material has been produced before us to the effect that coconut with husk which is sold in this part of the country is treated as fresh fruit by those who deal in the said commodity. Anyway, the point as to whether or not coconut with or without husk was a "fresh fruit" or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt under Notification dated March 31, 1956. That judgment rendered by a single Judge is no longer good law in view of the opinion, expressed by the Supreme Court in [1985] 60 STC 80; 1985 UPTC 1141 (Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner), which is directly on the point and hence binding on us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged before us that the liability to pay sales tax can be imposed by issuing a notification by the State Government and that the said liability could not be fastened by the aforesaid letters circulated by the Commissioner, Sales Tax. In this respect he has referred to us [1989] 72 STC 424 (All.); 1988 UPTC 1232 (Hindustan Reprographics Ltd. v. State of U.P.) in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has further submitted before us that there was no notification by means of which sales tax could be charged on the sale of coconut. This argument is misconceived because by virtue of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the tax is payable by a dealer "on the turnover in respect of goods other than those referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), at the point of sales by the manufacturer or importer at the rate of 8 per cent". However, when the State Government desires to modify the said rate it is empowered to do so by means of a notification. The State Government has not issued such a notification by which the rate of tax may have been modified. Therefore, under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
