BARJATYA TRADERS HATHRAS Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER HATHRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Barjatya Traders of Hathras have filed four Writ Petitions Nos. 27, 28, 981 and 982 of 1967 challenging the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, opposite party No. 1, assessing the petitioner to pay sales tax for the assessment quarter ending 30th June, 1967, the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, and the assessment quarter ending 30th September, 1966. Messrs Gangaram Sitaram of Hathras have filed Writ Petitions Nos. 29 and 979 of 1967 challenging the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, for the quarters ending 30th June, 1966, and 30th September, 1966. Messrs Dayabhai Zaver Bhai of Hathras have filed Writ Petition No. 980 of 1967 challenging the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, for the assessment year 1965-66. In each of the writ petitions the assessment order is challenged only to the extent of the purchases of arhar dal from dal and oil-seeds manufacturers.

(2.) THE petitioners' contention in each of the above-mentioned writ petitions was that the purchase tax imposed by section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is a single point tax and can only be imposed once and not repeatedly in a series of purchases and sales. They alleged that the arhar dal purchased by them had already been taxed in the hands of the dal and oil-seeds manufacturers who had sold the same commodity after putting it through a process which did not alter the nature of the commodity. This contention was rejected in each of the above-mentioned assessments by the Sales Tax Officer who held that arhar was commercially a different commodity from arhar when sold as dal so that it was liable in the hands of the above-mentioned petitioners, for the payment of purchase tax under section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as amended in 1964. The points involved in each of the writ petitions are common. The whole set of petitions may, therefore, be decided by the same judgment.

(3.) THE petitioners relied upon Tungabhadra Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 827; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 412), where it was held that although raw groundnut oil is converted into refined oil by being put through a process which consisted of separating the non-fatty contents of the raw oil so as to convert the contents of oil into those containing cent. per cent. oil. The resulting refined oil had different characteristics of colour, taste, and odour from that of raw groundnut oil, but the product was still held to be groundnut oil for purposes of taxation. The Supreme Court observed :