Kumarayya, Ag. C.J.
1. In Paro and Company v. State of Anclhra Pradesh (Tribunal Appeal No. 717 of 1963 decided on 23rd January, 1965), the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found that sugar candy and bura sugar sold by the assessees were exigible to a levy under the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act (58 of 1957), (hereinafter called the 'Central Act') and, therefore, could not be subjected to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Despite such a conclusion reached, the Tribunal remanded the case for determination of the question whether the said commodities were actually subjected to a levy of additional duties of excise under the Central Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred T.R.C. No. 14 of 1965 contending that once the said commodities were held to be included in the term 'sugar' which was exempt from tax under the Act, the order of remand was unwarranted. In two other appeals pending before the Tribunal which were also between M/s. Paro and Co. and the State of Andhra Pradesh (Tribunal Appeals Nos. 343 of 1964 and 699 of 1964), the majority view of the Tribunal, on the other hand, was that 'sugar candy' in the absence of any express terms or clear context in the Act cannot be held to be included in the term 'sugar' so as to be exempt from taxation under the Act. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal directed that the tax at the rate of 1 per cent, on the turnover may be levied. T.R.Cs. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1966 have been filed against these orders.
2. Obviously enough if the expression 'sugar' used in item 6 of Schedule V appended to the Act intended to include 'sugar candy', the petitioner will not be liable to tax to any extent in any of the above cases under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The further enquiry ordered in the first-mentioned case (Tribunal Appeal No. 717 of 1963) and revision of assessments in the latter two cases would then be unnecessary and the orders of assessment on that score would be liable to be set aside.
3. So then, the main question for determination is whether for the purposes of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act the term 'sugar' used in item 6 of Schedule V includes 'sugar candy'. That sugar candy is but a purer form of sugar admits of no controversy. That form, however, it assumes only after it is subjected to some process. Is it then, by reason of the same, excluded or intended to be excluded by the Legislature from the category of 'sugar' used in the Act? The legislative intendment can better be gathered from the historic background and the context provided in the Act. Originally sugar was one of the goods subjected to single point sales tax under the Act leviable under Section 5(3)(a). Such a tax could be validly levied by the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Second Finance Commission recommended that it would be in the interests of the public if sales tax on certain goods including 'sugar' is replaced by additional excise duties. One of the suggestions made by the Finance Commission was that the Parliament may impose additional excise duties on the goods mentioned in its report and distribute the proceeds on some fixed basis between the several States which agree to remove sales tax on the goods in question. It is in compliance with this suggestion that the former Central Act was passed making a provision for levying, collecting and distributing additional excise duty. The duty thus collected has to be distributed among the several States which agree to remove sales tax on sugar, tobacco and all its products etc. The Central Act came into force on 24th October, 1957. The State Government being anxious that there would be no double taxation in respect of these three items of goods and in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 5 exempted from payment of sales tax particular class of commodities in respect of which additional excise duties were leviable by the Central Government with effect from 14th December, 1957, subject to the condition that the dealer would prove to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that additional duties of excise on certain goods leviable by the Central Government had been so levied and paid. Thereafter, the Act was amended by insertion of these items in Schedule V. They were exempted from levy of duties by the State by virtue of Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 3 of 1958). This amendment was effected with effect from 1st April, 1958. Sugar was one of such exempted items. It would thus appear certain specified goods including sugar which were exigible to tax under the Central Act were exempted from tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In this way, a dealer in sugar on whom additional excise duty could be levied by the Central Government was exempted from payment of tax on the said commodity by the State. This in short is the historical background showing how and in what circumstances 'sugar' was removed from Schedule II and added to Schedule V of the Act and was thus exempted from tax. It is significant to note that no such term as 'sugar candy' was in Schedule II. Likewise no such term as 'sugar candy' is used in Schedule V. The Central Act also which merely denned the term 'sugar' did not expressly refer to 'sugar candy' in any of its items as evidently sugar included sugar candy which is but a purer form of sugar. In the Finance Act No. XIII of 1950, 'sugar' has been defined to mean any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent, of sucrose. Having regard to the historic connection of the Second Finance Commission's report with the legislative changes in the Central Act and Andhra Pradesh Act 3 of 1958, it is difficult to dissociate the terms 'sugar, tobacco and all varieties of textiles' used in the Central Act from those expressions used in the Andhra Pradesh Act. That is the reason why this court in Krishnaiah Setty and Sons v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer  14 S.T.C. 1 (A.P.) observed that these terms should be interpreted in the light of the definition of the respective terms given in the Central Act. To the like effect is the note struck by some other High Courts.
4. In M.L. Abdul Malik and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer  14 S.T.C. 214 (Mys.), the Mysore High Court observed that both the terms 'sugar' and 'sugar candy' were the subject-matter of legislation in the Central Act and held that 'sugar' on which excise duty had become leviable by the Central Government with effect from 14th December, 1957, has been exempted from the levy of sales tax by the State. This view was accepted by the Madras High Court in Vasantha and Co. v. State of Madras  14 S.T.C. 696 (Mad.). The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers  19 S.T.C. 24 at p. 25. (Guj.), held that patasa, harda and alchidana fell within the definition of 'sugar' in entry 47 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and their sales were exempt from payment of sales tax. It was also held that the word 'sugar' in entry 47 was intended to include within its ambit all forms of sugar, that is to say, sugar of any shape or texture, colour or density and by whatever name it is called. This view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers  19 S.T.C. 24 at p. 30 (S.C.).
5. Apart from all other considerations, prima facie, it is difficult to comprehend that 'sugar candy' can be other than purified sugar itself, for it contains no other ingredient but sugar. If sugar tablets are to be included in the expression 'sugar'-and we do not see any reason why they should not be included therein-there is no reason why 'sugar candy' should be excluded therefrom.
6. It is, however, argued that if it was intended by the Legislature that sugar in whatever form it may be must be included in the term 'sugar' used in Schedule V, the Legislature would have expressed so in clearer terms. It would have used the expression 'sugar in all its forms.' But as we have already noticed, having regard to the historic background and the expression used in the Central Act, we do not think there can be any clear context evidencing the intendment of the Legislature that the expression 'sugar' used was not confined to sugar in its ordinary form but covered sugar in all its forms provided the sugar element is wholly predominant and that sugar candy is undoubtedly such form of sugar.
7. We, therefore, hold that the majority view of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 343 of 1964 and 699 of 1964 that the expression 'sugar' used in item 6 of Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not include 'sugar candy' is not correct. We approve of the view taken in this behalf in T.A. No. 717 of 1963. If that be the case, 'sugar candy' which is no other than purified sugar would be exempt from tax as provided in item 6 of Schedule V. In that case in the absence of any qualifying words in the amended Act of 1958, it would be unnecessary for a further enquiry as to whether any Central tax had been already levied thereon or not. In this view T.R.Cs. Nos. 2 of 1966 and 3 of 1966 are allowed. The order of remand made in T.A. No. 717 of 1963 out of which T.R.C. No. 14 of 1965 arises is set aside. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal in T.As. Nos. 343 of 1964 and 699 of 19(34 are set aside and it is held that the assessee is not liable to any tax in relation to sugar candy and the orders of assessment in that behalf are set aside. The petitioner-company shall be entitled, to its costs. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 50 in each case.