PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
O.Chinnappa Reddy and M.R.Sharma JJ.
Jagdish Parshad Aggarwal And Sons
Versus
State Of Punjab
General Sales Tax Reference No. 14 of 1974,
Decided On : OCTOBER 19, 1976
Milk Khaja - Sales Tax - The court held that the sale of bottles of milk khaja, which consists of pure milk, sugar, flavour, and khaja, does not qualify as milk under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it involves the addition of other ingredients and does not retain the character of pure milk.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sold bottles of milk khaja, which consisted of pure milk, sugar, flavour, and khaja. The question was whether this product qualified as milk and was exempt from tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the product sold by the petitioner did not qualify as milk under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it involved the addition of other ingredients and did not retain the character of pure milk. The question was answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale of bottles of milk khaja qualified as milk and was exempt from tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered that the addition of cashew-nuts, sugar, and flavoring agent to the milk changed its character and did not retain the original commodity of pure milk. It referenced a previous case to distinguish the addition of ingredients in the milk shake from the case at hand.
Final Decision: The court decided that the product sold by the petitioner did not qualify as milk under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and ruled in favor of the revenue.
M.R.Sharma, J.
1. The following question has been referred to us by the presiding officer of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab :
Whether the sale of bottles of milk khaja, which consists of pure milk, sugar, flavour and khaja wherein no manufacturing process is involved in filling these bottles, is milk and the sale thereof is exempt from tax ?
2. At the very outset, we would like to observe that the learned Sales Tax Tribunal should not have assumed that no manufacturing process was involved in filling the bottles. He should have framed the question like this:
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of bottles of milk khaja which consists of pure milk, sugar, flavour and khaja comes within the definition of sale or not ?
3. We have said so because the question whether in preparing a thing any process of manufacturing is involved or not is a relevant factor to determine whether the original commodity remains the same or not. We, however, feel that if we are to remit the case back to the presiding officer of the Sales Tax Tribunal, it would involve further delay in the decision of the case. We have, therefore, decided to answer the question as now framed by us.
4. Before the Assessing Authority, the petitioner filed an affidavit which shows that he purchased cashew-nuts, grounded them and then added them to milk along with sugar and a flavouring agent. In other words, what the petitioner was selling was not milk alone; he was selling a mixture of milk, sugar, flavouring agent and cashew-nuts. A man in the street, when asked, would not regard the article sold by the petitioner as milk. In Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Lucknow Co-operative Milk Supply Union Ltd., Lucknow, [1972] 30 S.T.C. 165, the Allahabad High Court was concerned with the question whether milk shake answered the description of the word "milk" or not. It was held that when a little sugar and some flavouring article is added to the milk it does not change its character and people do use this preparation in place of milk. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable because in the milk shake no such commodity is added which loses its own shape when the final product comes into being. Apparently, in the instant case, powdered cashew-nuts still appear in the milk and it is precisely for this reason that the milk sold by the petitioner is known as "khaja milk".
5. We are accordingly of the view that the product sold by the petitioner does not answer the description of the word "milk" appearing in item No. 17 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 . The question is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.