9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited [1992] 86 STC 22. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), also relies upon the aforesaid decision to support the view that the subsidies given to the sugarcane growers such as plantation or varietal subsidy, cane seed subsidy to primary/secondary nursery and seed subsidy to the cane-growers on supplies from commercial nursery, retained by the growers are to be taken into account while determining the taxable turnover. 4.. The contention of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the assessees, is that the amounts paid to the sugarcane growers as subsidy for planting or varietal subsidy given in a particular month and the cane seed subsidy to primary/secondary nursery and the seed subsidy to the cane-growers on supplies from commercial nursery, are all consideration for the collateral agreement arrived at to make the sugarcane growers to agree to supply sugarcane to the factory and such a collateral agreement may be said to be for the purpose of growing the sugarcane and supplying the same to the sugar factory, but nevertheless, it is independent of the contract for the supply of sugarcane and for the payment of sugarcane price, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench. C. Natarajan, for the petitioner. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by JANARTHAMA, J.-Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Periyasevalai-607 209 (for short, "CCSM Ltd.") is the petitioner, while the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Full Additional Charge, Thirukoilur is the respondent in all these present tax cases (revisions)Tax Case Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993. All these tax cases are relatable to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. 2.. Certain statutory provisions governing the procurement of sugarcane, a raw material for the manufacture of sugar and matters allied thereto, besides the factual matrix-we rather feel-may be related here, in order to understand and have a fine grasp, with ease and grace, of the implications of the knotty legal questions-which we may pen down a little later-confronting us for a solution. 3.. The Madras Sugar Factories (Control) Act, 1949 (for short, "the MSFC Act") provides for definition of "planting season", b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llore Co-operative Sugar Mills, upholding the levy of sales tax on subsidies, liable to be taxed at 12 per cent assessed the tax on the escaped turnover relatable to subsidies and also additional sales tax liable to be levied, besides quantifying the penalty to be levied at a prescribed percentage separately for each of the relevant assessment years. 9.. Individual notices relatable to the relevant assessment years were issued to CCSM Ltd., requiring it to show cause as to why tax as respects the escaped turnover relatable to subsidies and consequent levy of additional sales tax at a prescribed percentage as regards the turnover in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty at the minimum prescribed percentage for wilful non-disclosure, as indicated in those notices should not be levied and collected. 10.. CCSM Ltd., in its turn, filed individual objection petitions to the notices so issued. The assessing officer, however, overruled the objection petitions so filed and passed final orders individually confirming the proposals made in the individual notices relatable to the relevant assessment years in his proceedings Nos. (1) 202279/85-86 dated January 11, 1991; (2) 612968/86-87 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the subsidy is treated as loan and after cane is supplied the loan amount is cancelled and the subsidy for the cost of seeds and subsidy for the rate on crop cannot be included in the taxable turnover. The seeds of the sugarcane is known as 'setts'. So he pointed out that the subsidies 'seeds and setts' are not includible in taxable turnover since the cost of seed is paid to the seed grower. For this, he relies upon the decision in [1969] 23 STC 232 (Mad.) (Sakthi Sugars Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani). In this decision, it is stated that: 'Though sugarcane setts beget sugarcane, that by itself does not tantamount to saying that one is equivalent of the other. Their properties and user are different and they are understood by the common man and the commercial community in different and distinct ways. Therefore sugarcane setts are not sugarcane and the sale of sugarcane setts cannot be subject to the levy of sales tax under item 62 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Where the sugar mills advanced monies to the ryots, who supplied sugarcane to them, to enable the ryots to purchase the sugarcane setts from the owners o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haracter of the payment.' The above decision clearly states that the subsidy for early planting is includible in the purchase turnover. The planting subsidy and setts subsidy is given for the growth of the cane. The canes which are grown on the land from the setts (seeds) reached the appellants' mills. So it can be safely concluded that the payment of planting subsidy and setts subsidy which are for the growth of the cane is linked to the cane purchased by the appellants. So it cannot be stated that the payment for the seeds were paid to the seed growers only and it is not includible in the purchase turnover. The amount paid as subsidy is retained by the cane-growers and it is over and above the price fixed by the Government as the price of sugarcane. So the subsidy paid to the cane-grower relates to the supply of sugarcane. Our High Court has held in [1992] 86 STC 22 (State of Tamil Nadu v. National Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited) that the subsidy paid relates to supply of sugarcane and the subsidy forms part of the price and it has to be included in the purchase turnover of sugarcane. Following the above decision we find that the planting subsidy and setts subsidy form part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relatable to "transport subsidy" is penned down in paragraph 6 therein as below: "The appellants contend that the transport subsidies are not includible in the purchase turnover. The lower authorities have found that the transport subsidy is includible in the purchase turnover of the cane. The counsel for the appellant argued that transport subsidy charges up to 40 kms. are includible in the purchase turnover and beyond that limit the transport subsidy charges are paid by the mill to third party lorry owner and hence the transport subsidy charges is not includible in the purchase turnover. The Director of Sugar has issued Circular in R.C. No. 24920/85 dated September 12, 1985 stating that the transport charges up to 40 kms. will be borne by the cane-growers and above 40 kms. will be met by the mills. So the appellant contends that the transport subsidy charges incurred for the supply over and above 40 kms. cannot be treated as pre-expenses of the purchase of sugarcane and it is not includible in the purchase turnover." (ii) The contention, as above, had been considered and answered by the Tribunal in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, as below: "(7) The decision in [1976] 38 STC 238 (Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they could deliver it elsewhere and accept reduced prices. On the question whether transport charges paid by the mills to lorry owners to transport the sugarcane to the factory, in order to assist the growers was includible in the purchase turnover of the mills: Held, that since under the agreement delivery had to be effected at the doors of the factory, and no deduction was permissible under law towards transport charges incurred by the growers, transport charges paid by the mills to lorry owners to transport the cane to the factory to help the growers was liable to be included in the purchase turnover of sugarcane of the mills.' In the above decision, it is stated that under the agreement delivery had to be effected at the doors of the factory and no deduction was permissible under law towards transport charges incurred by the growers and hence transport charges paid by the mills to lorry owners to transport the cane to the factory to help the growers was liable to be included in the purchase turnover of the sugarcane of the mills. (9) The above decision is based on the agreement entered into between the cane-grower and the mill and in the above decision, it is stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , recorded by the Tribunal, all the appeals were partly allowed, as indicated above. 14.. The aggrieved CCSM Ltd., resorted to file the present Tax Cases (Revisions) Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993 as respects the disallowed portions of its claims. 15. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., "Eldrado", 5th floor, 112, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-600 034 represented by its General Manager (Finance), Mr. G. Srinivasan (for short, "TAS Ltd.") is the petitioner, while the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle IV, Madras 600 006, the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras (South) Division, Madras and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, Fort St. George, Madras-600 009 are respectively respondents 1 to 3 in the present writ proceedings-Writ Petitions Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995. 16.. Writ Petition No. 15530 of 1995 is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from levying or recovering taxes (on the purchase of sugar by the petitioner) in respect of seed subsidies or varietal subsidies and such incentives incurred and paid to the cane-gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the orders passed by the respondents herein while undertaking to withdraw the appeals pending so that the issue may once and for all get decided before this Court which is considering the issue in the revision coming up for hearing as a batch. The petitioners may have the advantage of pleading on all legal and constitutional issues in this substantial writ petition. It is submitted that the tax demands have been raised on the above incentives indiscriminately apart from imposing maximum penalty for non-payment of said taxes along with the return. Due to lack of conceptual approach or analysis of the true concept of turnover, these demands have been raised/confirmed from time to time. Even the Tribunals constituted under the Act are not consistent in their view in their orders passed under section 36 of the Act. Some of the Tribunal's orders state transport subsidy is not taxable while others say transport subsidy is taxable. The decisions of this honourable High Court in [1976] 38 STC 238 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills) appears to show differently from [1985] 60 STC 113 (Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu). This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No. 15530 of 1995. 20.. The timing of the filing of the writ petitions is of signal importance. It appears that the writ petitions had been filed exactly at the time, when the present Tax Cases (Revisions) were listed for hearing before the first Bench, consisting of two of us, namely, the honourable the Chief Justice and Raju, J., which, in turn, admitted them. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) took notice on behalf of the respondents. Both these writ petitions-Writ Petition Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995-were heard, along with the present tax casesTax Case Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993. 21.. The first Bench, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the respondents, referred the aforesaid tax cases and the writ petitions to a larger Bench of three honourable Judges, by an order dated November 29, 1995. The rationale for the reference so made is as below (in paragraphs 2, 6 and 7): "2. In the above writ petitions, the validity of rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 is challenged, whereas in the above tax cases, several issues are involved, namely, (a) p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have rationale or reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved? (3) Is "planting or varietal subsidy" to be treated as consideration for the "sale" and "purchase" of sugarcane? (4) Does it make any difference, if such subsidy is disbursed later at the time or after the supply of sugarcane? (5) Are expenses incurred by the assessee-sugar mills, up to the supply to commercial nursery and cane subsidy to cane-growers on supplies from commercial nursery part of sugarcane paid/payable to cane-growers? (6) Is supply of farm inputs at subsidised rates to be treated as consideration to the grower for supply of sugarcane? (7) Are the transport charges incurred by the sugar mills excludible as not forming part and parcel of the price of the sugarcane sold by the sugarcane supplier? (8) Is transport subsidy includible as consideration for the sale of sugarcane by the grower? (9) Are development charges paid to the registering mill by the assesseessugar mills, part of sugarcane price paid or payable to the cane growers? 23.. Point No. 1: This point takes in its fold the question as to whether the provisions of section 2(r) and Explanation (2)(ii) appended thereto of the TN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or sold" in section 2(r) indicate that it concentrates, on price, being the money consideration for sale. "Sale" itself is "an agreement for the transfer of property for cash or deferred payment (money consideration). The words "aggregate amount" do not add to or enlarge the scope of section 2(r), but seek to assist in the computation of tax on the aggregate of selling prices on sales under section 2(n). When section 2(n) defines "sale" as transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, the Legislature was only looking to prices under the contract of sale. Section 2(r) refers to "aggregate amount" for which goods are sold under section 2(n). In this view, section 2(r), may not be understood as enlarging beyond the aggregation of prices. 27. Explanation (2)(ii) to section 2(r) may not be read in the abstract. It has to be read in the context of section 2(r) and not de hors it. Explanation (2)(ii) speaks of anything done by the dealer in respect of goods sold at the time of or before delivery. Therefore, unless something is done in respect of the goods, the explanation has no application. The Revenue may not rely upon explanation (2)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. But this contention was overruled and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the net turnover liable to assessment under the CST Act at Rs. 15,17,631 and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 15,176. (b) An appeal was taken to the Commercial Tax Officer, before whom also, it was claimed that the excise duty was paid on behalf of the buyer, and though it was recovered by a separate debit note, it was entered in a separate ledger and did not form part of the sale consideration. It was alleged that it was agreed between the buyer and the seller that only the value of the matches was to be paid. It was further contended that since CST Act has to be administered in the same manner at the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the excise duty paid to the Central Government being eligible for deduction from the turnover of the dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, a similar relief should be granted in the assessment under the CST Act as well. These contentions were examined by the Commercial Tax Officer, who came to the conclusion that the method employed by the petitioner in issuing invoices and debit notes did not alter the true nature of the transaction which was that the considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold the goods in bond and authorised the buyer to take possession of the goods which he could obtain possession of only after the payment of excise duty, it does not to our minds cease to be part of the sale consideration. It is also not denied that the liability to pay excise duty is upon the person who manufactures the goods and keeps them under bond in the bonded warehouse. The Central Excise and Salt Duties Act casts this liability undoubtedly upon the manufacturer. The rules thereunder also provide that a manufacturer could keep excisable goods in bond for a maximum period of three years. Though during this period he is permitted to pay the excise duty on the occasion of the removal of the goods for the warehouse, on the expiry of the period of three years, he is bound to clear the entirety of the goods and pay the excise duty thereon. This may, no doubt, not be directly relevant to the question before us. But it is still of interest to note that the liability to pay the excise duty is upon the manufacturer. Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act defines sale price to mean 'the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods'. Does the fact that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cco is what it is because of the rate of tax, but on a sale there is only one consideration though made up of cost plus profit plus tax. So, if a seller offers goods for sale, it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer. If the buyer agrees to the price, it is not for him to consider how it is made up or whether the seller has included tax or not." We think that these observations are apposite even in the context of the provisions of the Acts we are considering now, and there is nothing in those provisions which would indicate that when the dealer collects any amount by way of tax, that cannot be part of the sale price. So far as the purchaser is concerned, he pays for the goods what the seller demands, viz., price, even though it may include tax. That is the whole consideration for the sale and there is no reason why the whole amount paid to the seller by the purchaser should not be treated as the consideration for the sale and included in the turnover.' " Though these observations were made in dealing with the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax (Definition of Turnover and Validation of Assessments) Act, 1954, enacted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coffee did not make any difference to the claim. There was the observation by the learned Judges: "Even so, there will be no case at all for including that amount in the turnover. That could not be a part of the sale price at all." Reliance has been placed upon this observation by the learned counsel for seeking to establish that the quantum of excise duty did not form part of the sale price. The question whether excise duty formed part of the sale price or not was not in issue before the learned Judges. Even apart from that, the decision of the Supreme Court which we have referred to takes the matter beyond the realm of controversy. In some of these cases, objection is taken to the inclusion of the sales tax in the taxable turnover. What the Supreme Court has laid down in the above decision has direct application to the sales tax. We may observe further that in so far as the legislative competence is concerned, Parliament is fully competent by reason of the residuary entry in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, to bring to tax as part of the turnover, any amount, be it tax or designated by any other name. Besides the fact that the definition of "sale price" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the cost of freight, the claim that this amount should be excluded must fail'." 31.. In Sun-N-Sand Hotel Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1969] 23 STC 507 (Bom), the assessee ran at Juhu Beach in Bombay a hotel which had both a boarding and a lodging establishment. The customers, who came to the hotel were informed of the charges they had to pay for lodging with different amenities and boarding according to their taste. They were also informed that they had to pay service charges at ten per cent of the tariff and sales tax at five paise per rupee. The assessee objected to the inclusion of the service charges in its gross turnover on the ground that they did not represent part of the sale price but were recovered from the customers for payment to the employees and for covering partly the breakages. (a) The Tribunal found that the customers had no option but to pay the service charges, which entirely depended on the food ordered and consumed by them. (b) The assessee made an application, in the Sales Tax References, for making a reference on three questions, as below: (1) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the service charges constitute or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct which a customer enters into with the assessee when ordering any food. A specimen of the tariff card, which is presented to the customer as soon as he enters the hotel and which in effect is the agreement between the customer and the assessee, shows that in all cases service charges of 10 per cent on the tariff plus sales tax at 5 paise per rupee are to be paid by the customer. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the department that really there is no difference between the liability so far as the customer is concerned to pay the amount of sales tax and the amount of service charges at 10 per cent over the tariff; in either case there is no option to the customer. It cannot be disputed that the amount which is recovered as sales tax from the customer is properly added to the tariff in determining the sale price of the goods purchased. If sales tax can be properly included in determining the sale price, it is difficult to see why the addition of 10 per cent of the tariff by way of service charges should be on a different footing, and should not be considered as properly included in determining the sale price. The contention of the assessee, that it merely acts as if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services and when mere services are not available for payment, the Tribunal seems to be right in coming to the conclusion that service charges are inseparably mixed up with the total amount or price that is charged to the customer for the food that is supplied to him. In this connection reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Utkal Distributors (P.) Ltd. [1966] 17 STC 320. In that case arising under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, the assessee was a controlled stock-holder of iron and steel under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956. As such controlled stock-holder, the assessee in that case was not entitled to charge a price higher than that fixed by the Government of India. In fact under condition No. 4(ii) of the Notification dated 18th October, 1958, it was provided that the customer shall pay to the controlled stock-holder the Central sales tax incurred by the controlled stock-holder in obtaining the material and also pay such additional Central sales tax, if any, incurred on the sale to the customer. The question was whether the addition of the sales tax in the bill payable by the customer under the notification can be properly inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. If that is the nature of the sales tax then, urges the learned Attorney-General, it cannot be imposed retrospectively after the sale transaction has been concluded by the passing of title from the seller to the buyer, for it cannot, at that stage, be passed on to the purchaser. According to him, the seller collects the sales tax from the purchaser on the occasion of the sale. Once that time goes past, the seller loses the chance of realising it from the purchaser and if it cannot be realised from the purchaser, it cannot be called sales tax. In our judgment this argument is not sound. From the point of view of the economist and as an economic theory, sales tax may be an indirect tax on the consumers, but legally it need not be so. Under the 1947 Act the primary liability to pay the sales tax, so far as the State is concerned, is on the seller. Indeed before the amendment of the 1947 Act by the amending Act the sellers had no authority to collect the sales tax as such from the purchaser. The seller could undoubtedly have put up the price so as to include the sales tax, which he would have to pay but he could not realise any sales tax as such from the purchaser. That circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice charges or that the service charges will ultimately be destined for payment to servants or for the benefit of the employees of the caterer. The fact that part of the amount is utilised towards meeting the obligations of the employer in providing amenities to the employees, in our opinion, is hardly relevant in determining whether that charge or that extra payment demanded of the customer is or is not properly liable to be included in determining the sale price. In fact, that is the obligation of the employer vis-a-vis the employees under the contract or the settlement. Even if nothing were to be paid to the employees, the customer will still be required to pay 10 per cent over and above by way of service charges. Thus the fact that part of the amount goes for the benefit of the employees under the agreement between the employer and the employees can hardly be of any relevance in determining the nature of the payment and whether it could be properly included in determining the sale price of the goods supplied. In view of the conclusion which we have arrived at that the 10 per cent of the service charges charged to the customers are properly included in the sale price, the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration is made up. The question what is the net consideration which according to the seller is attributable to the real price of the goods is not relevant. Undisputedly the amount paid by the customer for food and drinks was the price stated in the menu card for supply of such food and drinks. How and why the price was fixed was not the look out of the customer. So far as he was concerned, he had to pay the price specified in the menu card if he wanted to take the food or drink. No option was given to him to buy it at half the price if he intended to carry it home. The applicant was not entitled to claim that half of the sale price or a part of it should only be regarded as sale price for the purposes of section 2(29) of the Act and that the balance amount should be regarded as payment for the comfort and luxury of a five star hotel. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the applicant that only fifty per cent of the receipts in respect of the service of food in the various eating rooms of the hotel was liable to tax. (i) It was further held that the applicant's claim that there were two implied contracts, one for environment and amenities and the other for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It claimed exemption under rule 9(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, of "freight and packing and delivery charges" in respect of which separate bills were made out when selling the goods at Ernakulam. (a) Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that freight and packing and delivery charges were an admissible deduction [vide: Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1960] 11 STC 827 (SC)]. But in that case the apex Court did not decide the question as to the true effect of rule 5(1)(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, of which the terms are the same as rule 9(1) of the Kerala Rules. The case was decided against the taxpayer on the ground that no separate bills were made out by the tax-payer and one of the conditions for the claim was not satisfied. (b) The apex Court at page 121 stated thus: "There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that in authorising the levy of sales tax on transport charges which formed a component of the price for which the goods were sold, the State Legislature had trespassed upon the leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of seller is part of sale price. In this view, the freight borne by the assessees-mills (purchasers), as required by the direction of the Sugarcane Commissioner being an expenditure laid on the assessees-mills (purchasers) may not be construed as price under the contract of sale. This will be, on the plain submission, that freight borne by the assessees-mills (purchasers) is not turnover; nor price at all and is paid by the purchaser direct to its transport contractor. (a) Assuming, but without conceding that freight required to be borne by the sugar mills under the directions of the Sugarcane Commissioner is part of turnover, nevertheless rule 6(c) may provide for exclusion of the price, rule 6 operates as deduction from the total turnover to arrive at taxable turnover. It provides for deduction of freight charges charged separately. Admittedly, the freight charges have been independently worked out and not even credited to the grower's account. The freight borne by the mills and which could not be recovered from the grower has to be absorbed and taken as expenses debited to cane development charges. The freight borne by the mills stands apart from the price of goods s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... class, it is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. Legislation enacted for the achievement of a particular object or purpose need not be all-embracing. It is for the Legislature to determine what categories it would embrace within the scope of legislation and merely because certain categories, which would stand on the same footing, as those, which are covered by legislation are left out, would not render the legislation, which has been enacted in any manner discriminatory and violative of article 14. Further, article 14 does not insist that legislative classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. The court would not interfere unless the classification results in pronounced inequality. On the other hand, it would not uphold mini classifications, where the differences between the classes or categories are inconsequential. 39.. The differences, which will warrant a reasonable classification, need not be great. What is required is that it must be real and substantial and must bear some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. When a law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 6(c) of the TNGST Rules. 44.. Since the definition of "turnover" in section 2(r) of the TNGST Act takes in the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold, "freight" and "charges for delivery" will have to be necessarily taken into consideration for ascertaining the "total turnover". However, in determining the "taxable turnover", by virtue of operation of rule 6(c), "freight" and "charges for delivery", will have to be excluded. The primordial requisite for such exclusion, as prescribed by the said rule, is that "freight " and "charges for delivery" have to be specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including them in the price of goods sold. It is of paramount importance to note that rule 6 speaks of a "dealer" entitled to certain deductions from the total turnover in the process of determining taxable turnover, subject to certain conditions specified therein. There is no express or explicit mention therein as to whether the expression "dealer " is referable to which kind of dealer-selling dealer or purchasing dealer or both. Notwithstanding the absence of any such express or explicit mention as to the applicability of the rule to the kind of dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such eventuality, their profit margin in the sale of sugar may get reduced, while the consumers of sugar may have the benefit of the reduction of cost in the sale price of sugar. Both of them, as such, stand apart and there is nothing common between them, in the sense of having been placed at similar situation. Such being the case, it cannot at all be stated that if the benefit of rule 6(c) is denied, when the assessment is done at the hands of the purchasers-sugar mills, the construction advanced to that effect suffers from the vice of unreasonableness and irrationality and is to be avoided. To put it positively, there is some difference, which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation in making such a classification giving differential treatment as respects exclusion to be made from the total turnover in the process of determination of that total turnover exigible to tax. 46.. Akin to the provision contained in rule 6(c)(i) of the TNGST Rules, Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 incorporated provisions in clauses (ii) and (iv) of section 2(kk), giving the benefit of exclusion of "transport costs" and "forwarding and handling charges" in the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of the sugarcane so purchased. (d) Section 2(c) of the MPGST Act defines "sale price" as meaning the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged. (e) "Purchase price" is defined in section 2(kk) as follows: "(kk) 'Purchase price' shall comprise of- (i) the amount payable by a dealer as valuable consideration for the purchase of goods 'simpliciter': Provided that where goods are purchased together with the packing material or container, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the purchase price of such goods shall be inclusive of the price or cost or value of such packing material or container, whether such price or cost or value is paid separately or not, as if such packing material or container were the parts of the goods purchased; (ii) transport costs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osts or expenses. They are transport costs, trade commission, forwarding and handling charges, insurance charges, local taxes, excise duty, cost of packing, etc. An analysis of these clauses would indicate that these are elements which would be added to the consideration paid for the purchase to arrive at the cost price in the hands of the purchaser. The parties may enter into contract distributing burden of costs, either adding it to the consideration or refraining from so doing; the Legislature has attempted to cut the Gordian knot by stipulating that such costs should be added to the consideration of the purchase in order to arrive at the 'purchase price'. There is nothing in legislative entry 54 of List II which creates specific restriction on the power of the State Legislature in defining 'purchase price'. On the other hand, as indicated by the Supreme Court, a legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers, but specifies the field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it. Undoubtedly, the Legislature has the power to enact law levying and imposing purchase tax and for that purpose, specify the components which will go to make up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the purchase price. The Supreme Court had occasion to decide legislative competence in respect of definition of 'sale price' in D.C. Johar Sons (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam [1971] 27 STC 120, wherein it was stated thus: 'There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that in authorising the levy of sales tax on transport charges which formed a component of the price for which the goods were sold, the State Legislature had trespassed upon the legislative field reserved to the Centre by List I, entry 89the power to levy taxes on railway fares and freights. The tax levied is not a tax on railway freight; it is a tax on turnover, that is, on the aggregate of sale price received by the dealer in respect of sale of goods. The fact that the price includes the expenditure incurred by the company for railway freight for transporting the goods from the factory site to its place of business does not make the tax imposed upon that component a tax on railway freight.' 13.. In the same way, the Legislature could define 'purchase price' as including transport cost and handling charge. The entry, as already mentioned above, is wide enough to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 the Supreme Court held as under: 'Under the first part of the definition of "sale price" in section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Act, the expression meant the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods and, therefore, the concept of real price or actual price retainable by the dealer is irrelevant. The test is, what is the consideration passing from the purchaser to the dealer for the sale of the goods. It is immaterial to enquire as to how the amount of consideration is made up, whether it includes excise duty or sales tax or freight. The only relevant question to be considered is as to what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer as consideration for the sale and not as to what is the net consideration retainable by the dealer. The exclusion clause in the second part of the definition of "sale price" can be availed of by the assessee only if the State seeks to rely on the inclusive clause for the purpose of bringing a particular amount within the definition of "sale price". But if the State is able to show that the particular amount falls within the first part of the definition and is, therefore, part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entive is offered and accepted in order to persuade the grower to go in for sugarcane cultivation, besides particular variety of cane to be planted in a month. The provisions of the TNGST Act do not require the grower in the command area to pay sales tax on the sale of sugarcane. The law does not oblige him to plant in a particular month or a particular variety. Therefore, the incentives, when offered and accepted constitute an independent, though collateral, agreement with its own promises and consideration. The promisor is the sugar mill and the promisee is the cane-grower. The consideration furnished by the grower is the planting of a particular variety of sugarcane in a month in return for the promises of the sugar mill to pay the incentive. This by itself has the attributes of an independent contract, distinct and different from the contract entered into by the grower under section 10(2) of the MSFC Act. Under the sugarcane agreement, the cane-grower is not entitled to the planting or variety subsidy; nor the grower can demand the same under the sugarcane agreement. Thus, there are two different contracts. The first one is to induce the contract of sale. The breach of one cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 8 Ch. App. 756 See Wedderburn (1959) CLJ 58. It may be added that the case of Collen v. Wright (1857) 8 E B 647, seems to offer an early example of a 'collateral contract'; pages 484-485, below. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1892] 2 QB 484; on appeal [1893] 1 QB 256, page 29, above is another example of a collateral contract between manufacturer and consumer where the consumer bought the goods from a retailer relying upon the manufacturer's advertisements. In that area such a finding is unusual; Lamber v. Lewis [1982] AC 225, [1980] 1 All. ER 978. See also Esso Petroleu, Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Comrs. [1976] 1 All. ER 117, [1976] 1 WLR 1, discussed more fully at pages 113-114 below. a promise; but there may still be difficulty in regarding it as part of the main contract, whether because it is clearly prior(69) or otherwise external to the contract, or contrary to the terms of the contract, or because the contract is reduced to writing.(70) In such situations it may sometimes be possible to interpret the promise as part of a separate or collateral contract, often called a 'collateral warranty'. Where the main contract is not yet concluded when the collateral promise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ogden Sons (Excavations) Ltd. [1978] QB 574, 590. The judgment of Lord Moulton is plainly influenced by the importance that the 'House should maintain in its full integrity the principle that a person is not liable in damages for an innocent misrepresentation no matter in what way or under what form the attack is made". See page 51. Such a principle is no longer valid. Dicta from it were however cited with approval by Lord Dilhorne in Independent Broadcasting Authority v. Emi Electronics Ltd. (1980) 14 Build LR 1. that contractual, as well as tortious liability on statements has of recent years been much more readily accepted. This manifests itself in two principal ways. First, promises are more readily inferred from statements, as in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon(76) where a pre-contractual statement as to the likely throughput of a petrol station was held to involve, as an alternative to liability in tort, a promise that the forecast had been made with reasonable care and skill (though not a promise that such an amount of petrol would actually be sold). In construing such contracts, careful attention must be paid to the exact content of the promise, as the case itself sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8; Law Corn. No. 154 Comnd. 9700 (1986). and another pertaining to co-operative sugar mills, like CCSM Ltd., in a circular from the Sugarcane Commissioner specifying certain subsidies. The question to be considered is not one of whether subsidy agreement is collateral one or the other. The question is, is subsidy, part of the sale consideration to fall within the definition of "turnover" under section 2(r) of the TNGST Act. The question of consideration has to be approached, not from the point of view of common law principles, which are aimed at defining and regulating the rights of the parties inter se; but from fiscal concept; for the purpose of arriving at the basis of chargeability. Whatever be the treatment as regards the rights of the parties to a collateral contract vis-a-vis main contract, for the purpose of computing turnover, one is guided purely by the definition under the sales tax enactment. Special concepts under the fiscal enactment are to be understood in the context in which they are introduced in the statute. 52.. The concept of turnover has to be analysed from the totality of circumstances leading to the transfer of property in goods. It is common ground that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also signed by the appellant. On the same day, the company as "borrower" executed in favour of the bank, a deed of hypothecation of its stock of goods for securing a demand cash credit. On the basis of these three documents the bank opened an overdraft account in the name of the company. A suit was brought by the bank for recovery of the sum of Rs. 2,86,292 being the amount due on the overdraft account. (i) The Supreme Court in such a situation, held that there was one integrated transaction constituted by the three documents and the legal effect was to confer on the appellant the status of a surety and not of a co-obligant and that if a transaction is contained in more than one document between the same parties, they must be read and interpreted together and they have the same legal effect for all purposes as if they are one document. (b) In Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1966] 23 STC 158 (Mad.) (former case), the question that came up for consideration was as to whether what is described as "lot cooly charges" paid on a percentage basis by the customers to different assessees form part of the turnover chargeable to sales tax. (i) The Revenue sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation. The explanation read in the abstract is, of course, of wide scope and may possibly take in any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods whether or not it involved also transfer of property in the goods. But, as we said, the fact that it is an explanation to the definition of 'turnover' and the 'turnover' is but the aggregate amount of the consideration of sales shows that it has to be read in the context and not de hors it. (c) In State of Madras v. Srinivasa Timber Depot [1974] 33 STC 423 (Mad.) (latter case), the Revenue urged that the former case (Srinivasa Timber Depot [1966] 23 STC 158 (Mad.) requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1970] 26 STC 248. The prayer of the Revenue for reconsideration as above, faced dismal failure, in the sense of affirming the earlier view of this Court. (d) In Joseph and Sons v. State of Kerala [1981] 48 STC 563 (Ker), the revision petitioner was a firm of timber dealers. They purchased logs of timber and sell timber as well as sawn timber and scantling. For the year 1974-75, they were assessed to tax on their turnover. Prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the definition of "turnover" in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act such charges also would fall within the scope of "turnover". On the question of turnover taxable under section 5A the assessing authority took the view that the entire turnover of purchases was assessable. (v) The appellate authority accepted the case of the assessee. He found that the sawing of timber had nothing to do with the turnover of the assessee and thus the whole of the sawing charges had to be excluded. He also accepted the statement of the assessee as to the quantum of timber used for converting into scantlings and sawn timber sold as such and on that basis reduced the turnover liable to tax under section 5A to the sum of Rs. 3,950.60. (vi) The Appellate Tribunal, before whom the matter was taken up in revision by the department, accepted the contention of the department. Adopting the reasoning of the Sales Tax Officer it found that the sawing work was done on the logs before delivery and for that reason the charges of sawing would fall within the definition of "turnover". (vii) In such a situation, what a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has stated is getting reflected in paragraphs 4 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed in respect of any sale and any amount refunded in respect of articles returned by customers shall not be included in the turnover; and (iii) where for accommodating a particular customer, a dealer obtains goods from another dealer and immediately disposes of the same to the said customer, the sale in respect of such goods shall be included in the turnover of the latter dealer but not in that of the former.' Turnover is evidently the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold. This aggregate amount would include anything done by a dealer in respect of the goods sold, at the time of or before the delivery thereof as mentioned in clause (i) of explanation (2). No doubt read by itself the words 'sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold' are quite wide in their amplitude. But the explanation does not stand by itself. It is an explanation to the definition and therefore it has to be read in the context of the definition of the term 'turnover'. What the aggregate includes is what is indicated by the main part of the definition. The aggregate is necessarily the amount for which the goods are either bought or sold. It is the sale pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. A similar view was taken in respect of transport charges and harvesting charges in Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane (P.) Ltd. v. State of Mysore [1973] 32 STC 104 (Kar). (f) In State of Tamil Nadu v. National Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited [1992] 86 STC 22 (Mad.), the respondent, a sugar manufacturer, paid certain sums to cane-growers on an acreage basis, as subsidy for early planting, and accounted for the payment under the head "cane development expenses". The Tribunal held that the sums were independently paid, to encourage early cultivation of sugarcane, and were therefore not related to nor includible as part of the purchase price paid for the sugarcane. (i) On revision petitions filed by the department a Division Bench of this Court allowing the petitions, held that the early planting subsidy and the early supply of sugarcane were closely linked. While calculating the profits, the respondent took into account the payments made as early planting subsidy. Moreover, the sums paid were retained by the cane growers, and were over and above the price fixed by the Government as the price of sugarcane. It was relatable to the supply of sugarcane, and there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchaser but shown separately is part of the 'turnover' within the meaning of the definition of 'turnover' in section 2(s) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The sales tax component of the sale price charged by the dealer to the purchaser is not collected by him as an agent of the State. Even if, therefore, the bill or the voucher issued to the purchaser indicates the amount of sales tax separately what is collected by the dealer from the purchaser is not tax but is merely a part of the sale price charged by the dealer to be purchaser. So far as the statute is concerned it does not cast any obligation on the purchaser of the goods to pay any tax and therefore what is collected by the dealer from the purchaser by way of consideration for passing the property in the goods to the purchaser is the price charged by him and not tax collected by him from the purchaser. The amount of money which goes from the pocket of the purchaser to the pocket of the dealer as a condition or consideration for the passing of the property in the goods is thus the sale price and not the tax. It is the amount, but for the payment of which, the dealer would not transmit his title to the goods in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, even where the case does not strictly fall under section 2(h) in the sense that the rebate was not given as cash discount but was otherwise allowed in accordance with the regular business practice and formed an integral part of the agreement or contract between the assessee and the buyer and did not vary the price payable by the buyer to the extent thereof." (j) In Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1972] 29 STC 1 (Mad.), the cess on sugarcane levied on an assessee-a sugar manufacturer, under section 14(1) of the MSFC Act, 1949, is in discharge of its own statutory liability and on its own account and, therefore, cannot form part of the assessee's purchase turnover of sugarcane under the TNGST Act, 1959. The cess paid is not taken into account in fixing the price under section 12(1) of the MSFC Act. The grower-seller has neither any liability for the cess nor is it paid on his behalf. It is paid by the purchaser on his own liability and not on behalf of the seller. The payment of the cess under section 14 read with the relevant rule is unconnected with the transaction of purchase and the price fixed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibility of the purchaser to take the goods at the place of the seller does not by itself enable the purchaser to deduct the transport charges from the taxable turnover. Normally the freight paid to the seller forms part of the price itself. The agreement between the seller and the purchaser might contemplate a price for the goods and a particular amount for transporting charges, for delivery of the goods at the purchaser's destination. Even when such an agreement is there, unless the seller shows the freight charges separately, he would have to include the transport charges as part of the price in the taxable turnover. Thus, how the invoice was prepared by the seller is relevant for the purpose of considering whether the freight charges are to be included in the taxable turnover or not. Since the purchaser is not the person who prepares the invoice, rule 6(c) could not apply to the purchaser." (i) After making the above observation, the court ultimately held that the transport charges paid by the assessee to third party lorry owners for transporting the sugarcane to the factory site was not to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee, but the charges paid by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very the property in the sugarcane passed to the petitioners and the transport charges incurred by the petitioners would readily be in the nature of post-purchase expenses and therefore, such amounts will not form part of the purchase price. In support of this, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills [1976] 38 STC 238 (Mad.), Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 73 (Mad.), Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 487 (SC), Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC) and Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 40 STC 195 (Mad.)." (ii) The submission of the Revenue is referred to in the same paragraph, thereafter, which reads as under: "On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was no alteration or modification of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the sugarcane growers and the situs of the delivery continued to the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the petitioner in T.C. Nos. 579 to 581 of 1978, an alternative is also provided that the sugarcane grower will bring the sugarcane in his own lorry or he will send the sugarcane in lorries engaged by the sugar mills with the further undertaking that the sugarcane grower will deliver the sugarcane in the mill and get paid the minimum statutory price fixed by the Government. In the agreements also, the sugarcane grower had agreed to bring the sugarcane and deliver it at the mill or factory premises in accordance with a date schedule fixed by the mills. There is no clause either in the application for registration or in the agreements to indicate that the sugarcane growers could deliver the sugarcane at a place other than the mill or factory premises and receive reduced prices. The provisions in the application for registration and also the agreement thus clearly establish that the sugarcane grower is responsible for the delivery of the sugarcane in the mill premises. It is true that the mills or factories maintain a fleet of lorries at their disposal and send such lorries to the growers for facilitating delivery. But there is nothing to indicate that there was any departure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grower is subsequently given credit to separately. From the price of sugarcane so arrived at, lorry charges, share money, recovery of loan (principal and interest, etc.) are deducted and the net amount payable is arrived at. The bill is passed for the gross amount and the net amount. This also indicates that at all times, the mills or the factories recognised only the statutory price as the purchase price of sugarcane and the transport or other charges have been regarded as amounts payable by the sugarcane grower, but initially paid by the mill and later recovered from the price payable to the sugarcane grower. On these materials, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that there has been a variation or modification of the contract entered into between the mills or factories and the sugarcane growers pursuant to which delivery was taken at the fields, cannot be accepted. Equally, the transport charges paid for initially by the petitioners and subsequently deducted cannot be treated as post-purchase expenses so as to enable the petitioners to claim the benefit of a deduction from the turnover." (iv) On the basis of the discussions as above, the conclusions of the court ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authorities as to which of these two decisions they have to take into consideration in deciding the question relatable to transport charges paid to third party contractors-lorry owners by the mills for transporting the cane from the field of the grower to the factory site. We are of the view that the rationale or reasonings given in the decision in Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 113 (Mad.), to which we find none to add-in arriving at the conclusion reached therein, reflects the real legal position and therefore, we hold that the view expressed in Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills [1976] 38 STC 238 (Mad.) shall stand overruled and be no longer a good law. 56.. Worthy it is to quote at this juncture, the weighty observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J., on the topic of tax avoidance in McDowell Co. Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC) and they are in the following terms: "The financial needs of the welfare State, if backed by the law have to be respected and met. There is behind taxation laws as much moral sanction as is behind any other welfare legislation and it is a pretence to say that avoidance of taxation is not unethical an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in [1973] 32 STC 104 (Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane (P.) Limited v. State of Mysore) and [1994] 93 STC 561 (Tungabhadra Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Karnataka) the apex Court approved the view taken by the Karnataka High Court on the basis of the nature of the contract in those cases as necessitating and justifying the entire amount paid being treated as price of the sugarcane supplied since the statute does not prohibit any agreement between the grower and the purchaser for the payment of a higher price for the sugarcane by the purchaser. Dealing with the decision in Tungabhadra Sugar Works Limited case [1994] 93 STC 561, of the Karnataka High Court, it was declared that if the entire amount paid could be treated as the price of the sugarcane supplied by virtue of the agreement between the grower and the purchaser, there could be no impediment, for treatment the entire amount paid by the purchaser as a price of sugarcane supplied, the condition prerequisite being that it must be found proved as a fact that the higher price including the excess amount was paid as the price of sugarcane under an agreement between the grower and the purchaser irrespective of a lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar mills to third party lorry owners do not form part of purchase turnover, since they are not connected with pre-purchase expenses and consequently, the claim, as respects the transport subsidy made by the assessees-sugar mills was allowed. It cannot be said that the Revenue is not aggrieved by such an order. But, nonetheless, it did not opt to file any revision. The fact that the revenue filed no such revision is of no consequence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Pertinent further it is to mention at this juncture that Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, appears for the petitioner, in the tax cases and the petitioner in the writ petitions. As already stated, the writ petitions had been filed in a comprehensive fashion canvassing many a question, inclusive of the transport subsidy, besides drawing attention of this Court to the conflicting views of this Court in that regard, exactly at the time when the tax cases were listed for hearing, of course, with the laudable object of settling various questions, obviously with a request for the reference of the tax cases and the writ petitions to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, which in fact, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
