PUTUL RANI DEB Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Putul Rani Deb, the dealer, carries on business under the name and style of M/s. Shankar Bhandar at No. 167, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, and is registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. She was assessed to sales tax for the four quarters ending on the last day of Chaitra, 1370 B.S. In her assessment, she claimed that the taxable balance of Rs. 1,10,290.28 should be taxed at the rate of 2 per cent as the transactions involved resulting in the said taxable balance related to goods such as methi, mouri, jira, cardamom, poppy-seed, black-jira, etc., which were oil-seeds within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee and levied taxes at the rate of 5 per cent.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, CommercialTaxes, Burrabazar Circle. The dealer produced before the Assistant Commissioner at the hearing of the appeal a letter No. 4(8)ST/57 dated 31st January, 1958, of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, which recommended that goods involved should be treated as oil-seeds under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Assistant Commissioner held that oil-seeds should be interpreted to include only those seeds from which oil is normally extracted and that the term should not be deemed to include seeds which are not known as oil-seeds in common parlance though oil may possibly be extracted from them through, some scientific process. Accordingly, the order of the Commercial Tax Officer was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. From this order, the dealer initiated proceedings in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. The Additional Commissioner after considering several reported decisions of the High Court as also of the Supreme Court held that the goods involved should be treated as spices having regard to the popular meaning. He held that the test was not whether oil could be extracted from these seeds but whether in common parlance the articles were used principally for extraction of oil. He held that the items in question were not included in the term "oil-seeds".

(3.) A further revision was preferred by the dealer before the Board of Revenue, West Bengal. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, held that though in common parlance the items concerned would not be treated as oil-seeds, but by reason of the definition given in the statute the meaning of the term could be stretched to include the items in question. The Additional Member did not interfere with the order from which the revision was preferred on the ground that the issues involved were intricate and observed that he would abide by the decision of a competent court on the question.