9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Sales Tax Department? (3) If answers to the above questions are in the affirmative, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had rightly exercised the discretion in not giving prospective effect to his order of determination under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in the case of the applicant The assessee M/s. J.G. Bavishi Sons is a firm dealing in drugs and medicines at Rajkot and is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The assessee had preferred an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Rajkot, under section 62 of the Act for the purpose of determination of a question as to whether any tax was payable on the sale of "water for injection" sold by it to Civil Hospital, Amreli, under bill dated May 9, 1980 and if so, what should be the rate thereof. It was the case of the said assessee in the said application that the said sale was covered under entry, 13 of Schedule I to the Act and hence no tax whatsoever was payable on the said sale by virtue of section 5 of the Act. The entry 13 read as follows at the relevant time: "13. Water (other than aerated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing the concessional rate of tax within the ambit of entry 26 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and that the abovesaid notification had come into force with effect from April 1, 1976. In view of this position the contentions raised by the assessee could not be accepted by the Tribunal. Later on the assessee had submitted the necessary application to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for making a reference to this Court, and accordingly, the abovementioned questions have been referred to this Court. Question No. 1: Mr. R.D. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has urged that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the commodity in question namely, "water for injection" would not fall within the tax-free entry No. 13 of Schedule I to the Act. It is the contention of Mr. Pathak that entry 13 is in respect of water exclusive of aerated, mineral, medicinal or tonic water and that, at any rate the water for injection would not fall within the abovesaid excluded categories of water. It is also the contention raised by Mr. Pathak that even otherwise, water for injection would fall within the meaning of water as understood under en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of AIR (pages 112-113 of STC). It has been pertinently pointed out that in interpreting the items of the statutes like the Excise Act or the Sales Tax Act, whose primary object was to raise revenue and for which purpose to classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had, not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. It therefore becomes clear that the same principle came to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in the year 1991, which was enunciated way back in 1961. During this period between 1961-1991 there are numerous decisions on this point. It would be out of place to have a reference to all the decisions rendered by the Apex Court of the Nation during this period. But nonetheless the reference can be made to certain decisions on this point. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1454, the same view has been taken by the Supreme Court. It has been stated that while interpreting the items in the statutes like the Sales Tax Acts the resort should be not to the scientifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee that water for injection would fall within the tax-free entry No. 13 being water simpliciter cannot be accepted. As noticed above entry 13 of Schedule I to the Act of 1969, excluded certain waters like aerated, mineral, medicinal or tonic water. It has been urged that the water for injection would never fall within the abovesaid excluded categories of water. It is true that the commodity under consideration can never be said to be aerated, mineral or tonic water, but nonetheless it should be the medicinal water. The Tribunal has taken the view that though water for injection might not be a medicine or drug by itself, it is being used for the medicinal purpose. It cannot be disputed or denied that water for injection would be used for diluting the medicinal preparation which would be in a thick liquid form or some time in the powder form also. The water for injection would always be utilised for the medical treatment and therefore it can be said without any hesitation that it would be a medicinal water. This position becomes clear by applying the abovesaid principles of popular parlance enunciated by the Supreme Court of India way back in the year 1961 and reiterated up t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect that the very language of the section which enjoins a decision by the Commissioner envisages that the decision is quasi-judicial or judicial and can never be characterised as an administrative order. These observations of the Supreme Court at page 71 therefore puts the question regarding the nature of the determination order beyond any controversy whatsoever. It has got to be accepted that the determination orders being pronounced by the competent authority under the sales tax legislation would be quasi-judicial or judicial orders and can never be said to be the administrative orders. But the controversy before us is slightly different. The question is as to whether when once the decision has been rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, in the determination proceedings, can it be said that it would be binding in other assessment proceedings in other matters also. Naturally one would like to obtain the answer of the abovesaid question from the Supreme Court decision which says that the determination orders are quasi-judicial or judicial in nature. But it appears very clearly that the Supreme Court had thought it fit to say that they were not concerned in the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of previous determination proceedings, there was the subsequent determination order which was also based upon the substitution of certain provisions of the Act. Here also it requires to be appreciated that the previous determination order was dated March 25, 1964. The second determination order is dated October 25, 1981. Meanwhile the Government notification came into existence with effect from April 1, 1976. Looking to the abovesaid decisions, though it requires to be accepted that the determination order cannot be branded or characterised as administrative order, the second determination proceedings would always be open. It has also been pointed out by the Supreme Court as noticed above in the case of Doma Sao Mohanlal [1971] 27 STC 473 that each assessment period is distinct and decision in one cannot operate as res judicata in respect of another period. Looking to this position it becomes clear that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the determination order dated March 25, 1964, passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the case of M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals of Baroda under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, had no finality for all the time to come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
