STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAJESH SOLVEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY two separate writ petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Rajasthan seeks direction to quash the common judgment dated July 24, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and to restore the order dated June 18, 1997 passed by the assessing authority.

(2.) IT would be trite to notice the facts in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2280 of 1999. The respondent-company is engaged in manufacturing solvent extracted oil having its plant and industry at Kesarpura, Sheoganj. The company is registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the RST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act" ). The State of Rajasthan with a view to promote edible oil industries issued a notification dated December 26, 1986 in exercise of powers under section 8 (5) of the CST Act extending the benefit to certain categories of the industries in the form of concessional rate of tax on the sale of edible oil. In order to promote solvent extracted oil industries the State Government on June 27, 1990 issued a notification under section 4 (2) of the RST Act giving relief to certain categories of industries in the form of concessional rate of tax on the sale of edible oil manufactured by the process of solvent extraction. The concessional rate of tax was 1. 5 per cent. Apart from this, the State Government also promulgated a new Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 with a view to give similar other benefits to the industries. On the recommendation of District Level Screening Committee, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Pali, granted eligibility certificate dated December 8, 1992. Thus, the respondent-company was allowed the benefit of incentive to the extent of 75 per cent of its tax liability to a maximum limit of Rs. 2,36,967. For the assessment year 1993-94, on the basis of inter-State sale to the tune of Rs. 35,39,047. 84, the assessment was finalised by the order of the regular assessing authority dated June 28, 1995.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company that the seal "not for direct human consumption" put on the bill is to meet the requirement of the Control Order, 1977. The oil manufactured or sold by the respondent-company is required to be refined which includes the process of deodourisation, decolourisation and removing of fatty acids. The oil which is extracted from edible oil seeds is edible even without refining. The learned counsel has placed reliance on (i) decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Milkhi Ram Oil & Dall Mills v. State of Punjab reported in [1992] 84 STC 206, (ii) decision of the Allahabad High Court in Chandausi Oil Mills v. Sales Tax Commissioner, U. P. reported in [1961] 12 STC 310 and (iii) decision of the apex Court in Champaklal H. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1980 SC 1889. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in absence of the definition of edible oil in the Act, the meaning given to the expression under the various other statutory provisions should be adopted. He has referred to the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, wherein edible oil has been defined under section 2 (g) which reads as follows : " 'edible oil' means oil used, directly or after processing, for human consumption and includes hydrogenated vegetable oil. "