TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the cess under section 18(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, displaced the levy of sales tax on the sale of jaggery under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959; and whether jaggery qualified as agricultural produce so as to fall within the exclusion from turnover.
Issue (i): Whether the cess under section 18(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, displaced the levy of sales tax on the sale of jaggery under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: The non obstante clause in section 18(1) was held to mean only that a cess could be levied notwithstanding liability under the sales tax law. It did not override or impliedly repeal the charging provision under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The same taxable event could bear more than one levy when the levies operated for different purposes.
Conclusion: The cess provision did not bar or exclude the sales tax levy on jaggery.
Issue (ii): Whether jaggery qualified as agricultural produce so as to fall within the exclusion from turnover.
Analysis: The exclusion in section 2(r) applied to agricultural or horticultural produce. Jaggery was held not to be agricultural produce, as it is the product of processing by physical and mechanical means and is not obtained by mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying.
Conclusion: Jaggery did not fall within the agricultural produce exclusion.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed because neither the non obstante clause nor the turnover exclusion displaced the sales tax liability on jaggery.
Ratio Decidendi: A non obstante clause permitting a cess on a taxable event does not by itself repeal an existing sales tax charge, and a processed commodity is not agricultural produce for the purpose of turnover exclusion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
