V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The assessees in this case are dealers in dyes, chemicals and paints. For the assessment year 1962-63, they were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 77,88,952-92 and Rs. 55,00,622-48 respectively. Allowing an exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 22,88,330-44, later on, the assessing officer sought to revise the assessment on the ground that exemption had wrongly been allowed on a turnover of Rs. 86,516-14 on account of second sales of ammonium chloride. The assessee had purchased from Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries (I.) Pvt. Limited the said ammonium chloride. It is not in dispute that the seller Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries Private Limited, was assessed on the turnover relating to the sales of ammonium chloride under item 21 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as the first sale in the State. The assessing officer in the re-assessment proceeding was of the view that only if ammonium chloride is sold as a chemical fertilizer, the transactions in respect of the same would be liable to be taxed under item 21, and since the purchase by the assessees and the subsequent sale by the same were not as chemical fertilizers but for a different purpose for use as industrial chemical, the transaction relating to the sale and purchase of ammonium chloride is liable to be taxed at multi-point. In this view, the second sale of ammonium chloride by the assessees, which was represented in the turnover of Rs. 86,516-14 was also included in the taxable turnover in the re-assessment proceedings. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, on a further appeal, the Tribunal held that whatever may be the purpose for which the ammonium chloride is used, so long as the goods sold by the dealer was ammonium chloride, it will have to be taxed only under item 21 of the First Schedule, and the re-assessment proceedings were, therefore, not legal, and accordingly he set aside the revised assessment and restored the original orders.
2. In this revision petition, the learned Counsel contended that item 21 relates to chemical fertilizers and only if ammonium chloride was sold as a chemical fertilizer that will be liable for single point levy, and the fact that the seller of the assessees was assessed on the turnover of ammonium chloride as if it is one falling under item 21 would not enable the assessees to contend that the sale of ammonium chloride not sold as chemical fertilizer is liable to be assessed at multi-point. Item 21, as it stood at the relevant period, reads as follows:
Serial Description of the goods. Paint of levy. Rate of tax.number.(1) (2) (3) (4)Per cent21 Chemical fertilizers, that is to say At the point of 3 (1) ammonium sulphate, (2) ammo- first sale in the nium nitrate, (3) urea, (4) ammonium State.chloride, (5) sodium nitrate, (6) calcium ammorium nitrate, (7) superphosphate single, (8) superphosphate triple, (9) kotkaphos-phate (10) di-calciuru phosphate (11) potassium chloride (murate of potash), (12) sulphate of potash, (13) mono- ammonium phosphate, (14) di-ammeonium phosphate, (15) bonemeal, (16) any mixture of one or more of the articles mentioned in items (1) to (15) and one or more of the organic manures.
It is seen from item 21 that all chemical fertilizers are not included therein, but only those falling under the specific items (1) to (15) of item 21 or any mixture of one or more of the articles mentioned therein and one or more of the organic manures, are to be taxed at single point. Thus, it might be, as contended by the learned Counsel, that the specifications following the words 'that is to say' are exhaustive of chemical fertilizers, but that does not mean that only sale of any one of the products as a chemical fertilizer, that is liable to be taxed at single point. If the commodity is ammonium chloride as in this case, whatever be the purpose for which the purchaser purchased the same, it would have to be taxed only at single point under item 21. Merely because the purchaser does not fuse it as a chemical fertilizer or he sold it to another person not for use as a chemical fertilizer will not bring the second transaction of sale or the subsequent transactions as falling outside item 21. Since it is a specified item under item 21 we are of the view that it could be taxed only at the point of first sale in the State and not at the rate of multi-point either at the first sale or the second or subsequent sales. Thus, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
T.C. No. 226 of 1971:
3. This revision petition relates to the assessment year 1961-62 and the disputed turnover is a sum of Rs. 96,342-11. This amount related to the second sales of ammonium chloride. Except for the difference in the assessment year and the disputed turnover, the other facts are identical. Therefore, this revision petition is also liable to be dismissed.
4. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each.