Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- Mr. S. T. Desai, counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, correctly assured us that the facts are not in dispute, although the legal inference bearing on taxability is very much in controversy.

2. The appellant who has arrived in this Court by certificate under Art.133(1) (a) of the Constitution urges before us that he is not liable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (LXXIV of 1956) (for short, the Act) sought to be levied from him. Admittedly the appellant is a leading dairy of Benaras and has been sending cream to Calcutta for being converted into butter or ghee. The long journey involved and the considerable quantities despatched necessarily called for protective receptacles during transport. So the cream used to be carefully sent in canisters whose lids were sealed by the seller. The Calcutta buyers received the cream and paid for it on the basis of the ghee/butter recovered from the cream supplied. Although there was some controversy even on the facts, counsel on both sides proceeded on the factual findings recorded by the Judge (revisions) who held that the sales were of cream, that they were inter-State sales and that the exemption extended by Government notification under the Act for cream could not be enjoyed by the assessee as he fell within the area of exclusion contained in the exemption notification. It is appropriate at this stage to reproduce the notification, dated May 10, 1956, under which the exemption is claimed. It reads:

"No. ST-3506/X D/- 10-5-56 Exemption has been allowed to :

Milk and Milk products such as Chhena, Dahi, Khowa, Butter and Cream but excluding (i) products sold in sealed containers (ii) sweet-meats and (iii) ghee."

Thus in general terms, cream is exempted from payment of Central Sales Tax by virtue of this notification but it carves out an exception to the exemption. If the cream were sold in sealed containers the seller could not come within the exemption notification. We need not go into the technique of sealing adopted in this case since it is common ground now that the cream is put in containers whose lids are properly soldered. The short question is whether cream sold in soldered containers in the, circumstance set out above can be described appropriately as products sold in sealed containers .

3. Fascinated we were by the imaginative and realistic picturisation of the expression products sold in sealed containers projected by Shri S. T. Desai, counsel for the assessee - appellant but, on further reflection, we veered round to the view presented by Sri Sanghi, for the State, that after all law is not always logic and taxation considerations may stem from administrative experience and other factors of life and not artistic visualisation or neat logic and so the literal, though pedestrian, interpretation must prevail.

4. The High Court has negatived the plea of the assessee and since we are inclined to agree with its reasoning, we express our grounds only briefly, although we may, in passing, make reference to two decisions cited before us viz., Govindram Ramprasad v Assessing Authority (Sales Tax), 8 STC 407 and Commr, of Sales Tax, U.P. v. G. G. Industries. (1968) 21 STC 63 (SC). Govindram a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is not germane to the question we are dealing with and therefore we need not discuss it. The latter - The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. - we shall discuss as it in some measure, governs the issue before us.

5. The assessee s main contention is that cream sold in sealed containers must bear a market meaning, if we may say so, and not be taken literally. What Shri Desai urges is that there are many articles which the consumers buy on the strength of the image projected before them in their packed state. For instance, a well secured box of chocolates, carton of dried fruits or a tin of coffee put out with well-known markings, a sealed bottle of whisky sold in such manner that its quality, quantity and gen