The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'fertiliser' and the classification of 'crushed bone' for sales tax purposes.

Headnote:
crushed bone - fertiliser - U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 - The court discussed the definition of 'fertiliser' and whether 'crushed bone' falls within this definition. It considered various notifications and expert opinions to conclude that crushed bones cannot be treated as fertilisers, setting aside the previous orders and leaving the question open for subsequent cases.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the question of whether 'crushed bone' can be treated as 'fertiliser' for the purpose of sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the previous orders and left the question open for subsequent cases, while also considering the assessing authority's power of rectification in view of subsequent decisions.
Issues: The main issue was the classification of 'crushed bone' as 'fertiliser' for sales tax purposes, along with the assessing authority's power of rectification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered expert opinions, notifications, and the identity of the commodity in common law parlance to determine that 'crushed bone' cannot be treated as 'fertiliser'. It also discussed the assessing authority's power of rectification in view of subsequent decisions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous orders and left the question open for subsequent cases, while allowing the appeal with the aforementioned observations and no costs.

Judgment

S.B. SINHA, J. - Leave granted.

2. Whether a "crushed bone" can be treated to be "fertiliser" is the question involved in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 20 - 10 - 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 1570 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

3. The respondent herein is engaged in manufacture of crushed bone. It runs a bone mill for the abovementioned purpose.

4. The question as to whether crushed bone would come within the definition of the term "fertiliser" must be considered having regard to some notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time. By a notification dated 16 - 7 - 1956, "fertilisers" other than "chemical fertilisers" were exempted from payment of sales tax by the State in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. However, by reason of a notification dated 10 - 3 - 1970, "chemical fertilisers" were also brought within the purview of exemption from payment of sales tax. By a notification dated 31 - 3 - 1976 a taxing entry was introduced in the Schedule appended to the notification dated 15 - 11 - 1971 in terms whereof sale of "bone to consumer" was exigible to sales tax of 6 per cent. Yet, in terms of the notification dated 7 - 9 - 1981, the Schedule appended to the said Act was amended; the relevant entries being 8 and 10 read as under:

"Sl. No. Description of goods Point of tax Rate of tax

8. Bones Sale to consumer 6%

10. Chemical fertilisers M or 1 5%"

5. It is in the aforementioned context, the question as to whether "crushed bone" would answer the description of "fertiliser" or not is required to be considered. We may notice that the High Court in view of some decisions rendered by the Tribunal as also a decision of the learned Single Judge of the M.P. High Court in CST v. Sagar Bone Mills, Sagar: No. 11 opined that "crushed bone" would come within the purview of "fertiliser".

Reference was also made to a decision of a learned Single Judge of the said Court in CST v. Crusher and Fertiliser Co. 2

6. Mr Kavin Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, a would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at the said conclusion relying on or on the basis of the decisions of the M.P. High Court in Sagar Bone Millsl and the Allahabad High Court in Crusher and Fertiliser Co. 2

7. In Sagar Bone Millsl the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated the law, thus: (STC p. 340, paras 3 - 4)

"3. " It cannot be denied that bonemeal or crushed bones are bones of animals which include powdered bones. The three entries referred to earlier must be read harmoniously, and, so read, their effect is clearly to impose sales tax on bones of animals which include crushed bones and bonemeal.

4. In coming to the conclusion that the question whether crushed C bone or bonemeal manufactured by the assessee was fertiliser for the purpose of the Sales Tax Acts should be determined with reference to the definition of fertiliser given in the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, the Sales Tax Tribunal altogether overlooked the settled rules of construction about the meaning of words used in different statutes. It is firmly settled that the interpretation or definition clause occurring in a statute can be d used only for the purpose of interpreting words appearing in that statute and not for the purpose of interpreting words appearing in other statutes.

To take a word bearing a peculiar meaning in a particular Act and to clothe that word with the same meaning when found in different context in a different Act is a fallacious process of interpretation. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in pressing into service the definition of e fertiliser given in the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 - a statutory provision, the scope and object of which is altogether different from the Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal was, there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 217

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'fertiliser' and the classification of 'crushed bone' for sales tax purposes.

Cases Referred (1)