Skip to content


Venugopalaswamy and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, City Division, Bangalore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.A. No. 8/62-63, A.P. No. 459 of 61-62, Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 53 of 1962
Judge
Reported in[1963]14STC883(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957; Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 - Rule 18
AppellantVenugopalaswamy and Co.
RespondentDeputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, City Division, Bangalore and anr.
Advocates:K. Sreenivasan, Adv.
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908. section 96: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] regular first appeal court fee in appeal - suit for partition and separate possession - payment of court fee of rs.200/-on the plaint under section 35(2) dismissal of suit appealed against - payment of court fee of rs.200/- in the appeal office objection specific finding by the trial court as to ouster of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property whether plaintiff is liable to pay court fee under section 35(1) or under section 35(2) of the karnataka court fees & suits valuation act, 1958 held, merely because the trial court has held that plaintiff is not in possession and has been excluded from possession there will be no change in the court fee payable in the appeal filed by the plaintiff..........themselves between groundnut oil and hydrogenated groundnut oil and it was held that the essential commodity was the same. in the present context, however, the legislature has made a distinction between the two, since both of them appear in the same schedule and it cannot be said that the differentiation is illusory, for, it is only after groundnut oil undergoes a certain process or processes that it becomes vanaspathi. it cannot be suggested that the legislature cannot tax at different rates or in different ways, e.g., in regard to incidence or exemption, commodities which can be reasonably differentiated. the facts that groundnut oil is liable to taxation at a single point makes no difference to the above position. 2. we do not, therefore, see any reason to admit this petition. it is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.

1. It is seen from the Second Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, that there is differentiation between hydrogenated oils (item 35) and groundnut oil (item 47) in regard to the rates of tax. It is urged that groundnut oil does not cease to be so merely because it undergoes the process of hydrogenation and is sold as vanaspathi and that this is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 827). That was, however, in the context of interpreting rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, in which no distinction was made in the rules themselves between groundnut oil and hydrogenated groundnut oil and it was held that the essential commodity was the same. In the present context, however, the Legislature has made a distinction between the two, since both of them appear in the same Schedule and it cannot be said that the differentiation is illusory, for, it is only after groundnut oil undergoes a certain process or processes that it becomes vanaspathi. It cannot be suggested that the Legislature cannot tax at different rates or in different ways, e.g., in regard to incidence or exemption, commodities which can be reasonably differentiated. The facts that groundnut oil is liable to taxation at a single point makes no difference to the above position.

2. We do not, therefore, see any reason to admit this petition. It is rejected.

3. Petition rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //