LAWS(MAD)-1990-9-30

JOTHI ANDAVAR AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 13, 1990
JOTHI ANDAVAR AND COMPANY Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, the point raised is one and the same, namely, whether "groundnut kernel" dealt with by the assessee will fall under item 6 (i) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). All the four tax cases relate to the same assessee for assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 arising out of C. T. A. Nos. 314 and 315 of 1980, on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated November 27, 1980. For the abovesaid two assessment years, the assessee, namely, Messrs. Andavar and Company, while submitting the returns, objected to the tax being levied on the purchase of groundnut kernel at single point rate under item 6 (i) of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Tribunal, by a common order in both the appeals, namely, C. T. A. Nos. 314 and 315 of 1980, held that the groundnut kernel will not fall under the abovesaid entry. However, it held that it would be liable to tax at multi-point rate. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal that it is multi-point rate, the assessee filed two revision petitions, namely, T. C. Nos. 69 and 70 of 1981. The Revenue filed T. C. Nos. 626 and 627 of 1981 challenging the view of the Tribunal that the groundnut kernel will not fall under item 6 (i) of the Second Schedule to the Act.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed by one Messrs. Jothi andavar and Company, challenging the assessment order for the year 1980-81, subjecting groundnut kernel at the single point rate falling under item 6 (i) of the Second Schedule to the Act. As the only question that was raised before us in all these cases being common and common arguments were addressed, these cases are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) IN this context, a Division Bench judgment of this court in Radhakrishna Groundnut Oil Mill v. State of Madras reported in 1954 (5) STC 357, 1954 (2) MLJ 550 can be advantageously referred to. The Division bench in that judgment has taken the view that the expression "groundnut" would include "groundnut kernel", while construing the scope and extent of rule 4 (2) of Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. Similarly, a Division Bench of the andhra Pradesh High Court in Motilal Hariprasad and Brothers v. State of Andhra reported in 1955 (6) STC 654 while construing the scope and extent of rule 4 (2)of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, has taken the view that the expression "groundnut" will include "groundnut kernel". Another Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court, in Motilal Hari Prasad and Bros. v. State of Andhra reported in 1959 (10) STC 20while construing the scope and extent of rule 4 (2) of the Madras general Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, held as follows : ". . . . . to confine the meaning of the word 'groundnut'to the unshelled nuts is to deprive the expression of its full content. We feel that there is no warrant for putting a restricted interpretation on that word. IN our opinion, this word is of wide amplitude so as to embrace within its compass the kernel also. The mere fact that the nut is shelled and is converted into kernel cannot take it out of the purview of the definition of groundnut. The groundnut is purchased only for its content, namely, the kernel. We are unable to discover any intelligent differential between the groundnut and the kernel for the purpose of rule 4 (2 ). " * The reasoning of the learned Judges in this case will apply with much force to the facts of our case if we bear in mind that the principal entry is "oil-seeds". We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that "groundnut" in item 6 (i) of the Second schedule to the Act will include "groundnut kernel".