COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. BANSILAL BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference at the instance of the CST. The question referred is:

(2.) BANSI Lal Bhasin carried on the business sale of Ilaichidana. It disclosed a turnover of Rs. 48,321/- which was enhanced to Rs. 55,000/- by the STO. It was contended by the dealer before the STO that Ilaichidana was not taxable, as it was nothing but sugar. This contention was not accepted by the STO on the ground that although Ilaichidana was manufactured from sugar, its form was changed and it became a different commodity. On appeal, the turnover returned by the assessee was accepted, but the contention that Ilaichidana was sugar was repelled. The Revising Authority, however, held on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat vs. Shakkarwala Bros. 19 STC 24 (SC) , that Ilaichidana was nothing but a lump of sugar, and as such was not taxable.

(3.) THUS , in order to get exemption from tax all that is required is that the commodity concerned should be such sugar as contains more than 90 per cent sucrose, and is not one which is excluded under the notification. There is no finding that Ilaichidana falls within any of the categories specifically excluded under the notification. It is also not disputed that it contains more than 90 per cent of sucrose and is manufactured from sugar. The Judge Revisions has given a finding that it does not contain cardamom (Ilaichi) . This being so, it will come within the expression of the word 'sugar' as used in the notification, and the mere fact that it is not in crystal form will not alter its nature. We accordingly answer the question in the negative against the Department and in favour of the assessee. As none has appeared in favour of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-.