PARO AND CO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN M/s. Paro and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Tribunal Appeal No. 717 of 1963 decided on 23rd January, 1965), the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found that sugar candy and bura sugar sold by the assessees were exigible to a levy under the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act (58 of 1957), (hereinafter called the "central Act") and, therefore, could not be subjected to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). Despite such a conclusion reached, the Tribunal remanded the case for determination of the question whether the said commodities were actually subjected to a levy of additional duties of excise under the Central Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred T. R. C. No. 14 of 1965 contending that once the said commodities were held to be included in the term "sugar" which was exempt from tax under the Act, the order of remand was unwarranted. In two other appeals pending before the Tribunal which were also between M/s. Paro and Co. and the State of Andhra Pradesh (Tribunal Appeals Nos. 343 of 1964 and 699 of 1964), the majority view of the Tribunal, on the other hand, was that "sugar candy" in the absence of any express terms or clear context in the Act cannot be held to be included in the term "sugar" so as to be exempt from taxation under the Act. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal directed that the tax at the rate of 1 per cent. on the turnover may be levied. T. R. Cs. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1966 have been filed against these orders.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY enough if the expression "sugar" used in item 6 of Schedule V appended to the Act intended to include "sugar candy", the petitioner will not be liable to tax to any extent in any of the above cases under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The further enquiry ordered in the first-mentioned case (Tribunal Appeal No. 717 of 1963) and revision of assessments in the latter two cases would then be unnecessary and the orders of assessment on that score would be liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN M. L. Abdul Malik and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1963] 14 S. T. C. 214 (Mys.)), the Mysore High Court observed that both the terms "sugar" and "sugar candy" were the subject-matter of legislation in the Central Act and held that "sugar" on which excise duty had become leviable by the Central Government with effect from 14th December, 1957, has been exempted from the levy of sales tax by the State. This view was accepted by the Madras High Court in Vasantha and Co. v. State of Madras ([1963] 14 S. T. C. 696 (Mad.) ). The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers ([1967] 19 S. T. C. 24 at p. 25 (Guj.)) held that patasa, harda and alchidana fell within the definition of "sugar" in entry 47 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and their sales were exempt from payment of sales tax. It was also held that the word "sugar" in entry 47 was intended to include within its ambit all forms of sugar, that is to say, sugar of any shape or texture, colour or density and by whatever name it is called. This view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers ([1967] 19 S. T. C. 24 at p. 30 (S. C.) ). Apart from all other considerations, prima facie, it is difficult to comprehend that "sugar candy" can be other than purified sugar itself, for it contains no other ingredient but sugar. If sugar tablets are to be included in the expression "sugar" - and we do not see any reason why they should not be included therein - there is no reason why "sugar candy" should be excluded therefrom.