A KANNU Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming himself to be an agriculturist owning lands in Matrapalli village, Tirupattur Taluk, North Arcot District, has field this writ petition seeking for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 22nd March, 1969, issued by him to the petitioner proposing the levy of sales tax on sale of jaggery, admittedly sold by him. THE case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and he has raised sugar-cane on his lands, and as there were no facilities for transport and as there was no market for sugar-cane as such, he had to covert the sugar-cane into jaggery and thereafter realise his agricultural income by sale thereof. THE petitioner admits that during the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, he effected sales of jaggery to the tune of Rs. 34, 381. 28. His case, however, is that as jaggery has been notified as an agricultural produce under section 2 of the Madras Agricultural Produce markets Act, 1959, and as section 18 (1) thereof authorises the levy of a cess by way sales tax, it follows that there could be no other levy in the nature of sales tax, may it be under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as well. His objection to the levy under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) is that the Madras Agricultural Produce Act hereinafter called the Produce Act forms part and parcel of the sales tax law, and section 3 of the Act should therefore be construed as the main charging section for sale of jaggery or agricultural produce, and section 18 of the Produce Act be interpreted as an exception thereto. His next contention is that under section 2 (r) of the Act, agricultural produce has been explained to be produce other than tea, but not including such produce as has been subjected to any physical, chemical or other processes for being made fit for consumption, save mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying. THE argument is that this non-inclusion of the produce which has been subject to a process violates the real sense and meaning of the main provision under section 2 (r) of the Act and therefore it has to be struck down or held to be ultra vires of the powers of the local legislature. THE third contention is that the petitioner, in any event, is not a dealer in jaggery and his entire scheme of operations which resulted in the sale of jaggery and the realisation of money or price thereafter is only in the process of his activity to earn income and not as a businessman trading in a commodity for the purposes of trade or commerce as is popularly understood. In so far as the first contention is concerned, section 18 of the Produce Act affords the clear answer. Section 18 begins with the non obstante clause, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras general Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Madras Act 1 of 1959)" *

(2.) THIS clause, if made operative, the contention has to fail. It follows from the above parenthesis, that notwithstanding the levy under section 3 of the Act, the market committee shall levy a cess by way of sales tax on any notified agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area at the prescribed rate. THIS provision in the Produce Act operates alongside with the charging section in the Act. As the learned Government pleader rightly contends, this point becomes more clear when we peruse section 6 of the Act which provides that the tax under the Act shall be levied in addition to any tax under any other law for the time being in force. We are unable to agree with the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 18 of the Produce Act virtually takes away the right of the revenue to assess, levy and collect sales tax under the provisions of the act.