SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 424

2005(2) Supreme 448
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. —Appellant
versus
S/S. National Cereal Product —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 1999
With
C.A.Nos. 6222-6225/1999
C.A.No. 4313/2001
CA Nos. 1565-67 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 7423-7425/2004)
Decided on 7-3-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi and S.B. Dixit, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, Dhruv Agarwal and Praveen Kumar, Advocates.

Important point
Germinated barley or malt is a cereal for purposes of notifications issued under U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Headnote:U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948—Section 3D—Notifications providing for tax for foodgrains including cereal and pulses —Assessee claimed that malted barley sold by it was covered by word “cereal” in Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act—Tribunal found that “malt” was covered by word “cereal”—High Court held that malt was merely another form of barely and was a foodgrain within the meaning of notifications—Appeal—Question whether germinated barley or malt was a cereal? Yes.

       Held : Counsel for the appellant then referred to various other diction­aries to contend that malt is neither cereal nor a foodgrain. The grain, according to the appellant, is a seed which is yet to be germi­nated. We have considered the various dictionary meanings referred to by the appellant. In none of them has the word ‘grain’ been limited to an un-germinated seed. On the contrary, malt has been described as a foodgrain. The notifications by which the rate of tax has been fixed in respect of foodgrains makes it clear that the definition of foodgrains in the notifications is wider than that in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It must be remembered that the notifications are not exception notifications but contain charging provisions. As such the onus to prove that the malted barley does not fall within food­grains or cereals was on the Revenue. They have failed to discharge the onus. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have concurrently found that malted barley is a foodgrain or cereal for the purposes of the three notifications for reasons that cannot be discarded as perverse. We therefore see no reason to interfere with their conclusion. (Paras 11 and 12)

Judgment

Ruma Pal, J.—Leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. The dispute in this case is whether germinated barley or malt is a cereal for the purposes of three notifications. Malted barley is barley which is soaked in water and upon germination, dried. The first notification is issued under Section 3D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 and is dated 30th May, 1975. It provided that with effect from 18th June, 1975 the turnover of first purchases of inter alia foodgrains includ­ing cereals and pulses but excluding Sawan, Kodon, Mandua, Kakun, Manjhri (or Ankri), Kutu, Ramkana and Paddy would be liable to tax under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3D at the rates men­tioned against it.

3. The second Notification is dated 11th September, 1976. This notifi­cation was issued under sub-section (2A) of Section 3A of the UP Sales Tax Act, 1948. It provided that with effect from 11th September, 1976 the ­turnover in respect of foodgrains (including cereals and pulses) other than cereals and pulses as defined in Section 14 in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 shall be liable to tax at the reduced rate of 4% at the point of sale to the consumer.

4. The third notification is dated 30th of April, 1977 issued under Section 3D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. It provided that with effect from 1st May, 1977, the turnover of first purchases of inter alia foodgrains including cereals and pulses other than cereals and pulses as defined in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 would be liable to tax at 4%.

5. Earlier the respondent assessee had claimed that the malted barley sold by it was covered by the word “cereal” in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The High Court had rejected this claim by its judgment dated 16th September, 1993 and held that malted barley was not a cereal within the meaning of Section 14 of the 1956 Act.

6. The respondent—assessee then moved five rectification applications before the High Court alleging that the alternative cases that had been argued by the respondent had not been noted or dealt with by the High Court in the order dated 16th September, 1993. The alternative case of the respondent—assessee was that even if the malted barley was not a cereal within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 nevertheless it continued to be a foodgrain or cereal for the purposes of the three notifications. In the further alterna­tive it was urged by the respondent—assessee that in any case it was the duty of the Taxing Authority to tax the assessee under the proper entry if the contention of the assessee had been negatived by the authorities. The five rectification applications were disposed of by judgment and order dated 21st September, 1994. The High Court held that the determination of the alternative cases might require evidence and therefore it was appropriate to send the case back to the Sales Tax Tribunal. Accordingly, it was ordered that the Sales Tax Tribunal shall decide the question whether the malt prepared from barley is foodgrain including cereal within the meaning of the three notifica­tions. It was however, made clear that the Tribunal would take the finding of the Court that malt and barley were two different commodi­ties and that malt did not fall within the definition of word ‘cereal’ for the purposes of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as final.

7. On remand, the Tribunal re-examined the meaning of the definition “malt” and “cereal” in several dictionaries and encyclopedias and came to the conclusion that the word ‘malt’ was covered by the word “ce­real” in the three notifications.

8. The High Court dismissed the revision application of the Department by independently considering the definitions given in ­various diction­aries and other authoritative works and came to the conclusion that malt is merely another form of barley and was a foodgrain within the meaning of the three notifications.

9. Impugni







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top