Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Agra Food Product Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 37 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1985]59STC47(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentAgra Food Product Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateBharatji Agrawal, Adv.
DispositionPetition Dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee on the ground that oil-cake was not one of the notified goods so far as the assessee was concerned, and making consignment sales of oil-cakes did not amount to contravention of the provisions of section 4-b of the act. the tribunal, therefore, held that in the case of the assessee oil-cakes were only a by-product of the manufacture of oil, which (oil) alone was the notified commodity and therefore, the assessee was not liable to levy of additional tax at 2 per cent on the purchase of oil-seeds on the ground and it had not made sales of oil-cakes whether in u.p. or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. the commissioner has felt aggrieved and hence this revision.3. the questions of law raised in this revision are as follows :(1).....
Judgment:

R.B. Lal J.

1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., has filed this revision against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench, dated 12th October, 1982 in so far as it relates to U.P. sales of oil-cakes (khali).

2. The assessee-opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of oil and oil-cakes and of some other commodities. The assessee holds a recognition certificate under the provisions of Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (briefly the Act). For the assessment year 1976-77 the assessee disclosed its taxable turnover of U.P. sales. The assessing authority enhanced the turnover. The assessee appealed and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, gave only some relief to the assessee. The assessee filed second appeal before the U.P. Sales Tax Tribunal. Four points were canvassed before the Tribunal by the assessee. Point No. 4 was that the assessee was not liable to forfeit concession of tax on the purchase of oil-seeds worth Rs. 28,62,000 on account of its having made consignment sales of oil-cakes produced from the said oil-seeds. This point was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee on the ground that oil-cake was not one of the notified goods so far as the assessee was concerned, and making consignment sales of oil-cakes did not amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 4-B of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in the case of the assessee oil-cakes were only a by-product of the manufacture of oil, which (oil) alone was the notified commodity and therefore, the assessee was not liable to levy of additional tax at 2 per cent on the purchase of oil-seeds on the ground and it had not made sales of oil-cakes whether in U.P. or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Commissioner has felt aggrieved and hence this revision.

3. The questions of law raised in this revision are as follows :

(1) Whether oil-cake is notified goods under Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the assessee did not act in contravention of provisions of Section 4-B and so was not liable to tax on the purchase of oil-seeds worth Rs. 28,62,000.00 ?

4. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any notification or other provision wherein 'oil-cake' is notified goods for purpose of Section 4-B of the Act. Since oil-cake was not one of the notified goods, the requirement contained in the provisions of Section 4-B of the Act that the notified goods should be sold either in U. P. or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or exported out of India, are not applicable to this commodity. In the case of the assessee oil-cakes were merely a by-product and were not the main goods for manufacture of which recognition certificate was obtained under Section 4-B of the Act.

5. The view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, legally correct. Question No. (1) is decided in the negative and question No. (2) is decided in theaffirmative.

6. There is no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. Therewill be no order as to costs.


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