( 1 ) REDDY, J. (1) This interpretation of Rr. 18 (2) and 5 (1) (g ). Turnover and Assessment Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by R. 3, Sub-rr. 4 and 5, Madras General Sales Tax Act is involved in this Revision Case. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1949-50. The petitioner is registered as a manufacturer under R. 18. The assessee-company purchase ground-nuts and converts them into oil both refined and hydrogenated. A deduction was claimed both under R. 18 (2) and R. 5 (1) (g ). The department declined to grant the deduction under both the heads on the ground that in the first case the oil sold by the petitioners was not the same commodity which was obtained by pressing the kernel and in regard to the second that the freight was not included in the price of the commodity as contemplated in R. 5 (1) (g ).

( 2 ) ON appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the deduction in respect of refined oil but refused it with regard to the hydrogenated oil and freight charges. The Tribunal held that the hydrogenated oil otherwise called vanaspathi was not the same thing the oil obtained from crushing the groundnut and therefore fell outside the scope of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document