1973 (7) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interpretation of Sales Tax Act exemptions for foodgrains in assessment year 1964-65 clarifies turnover calculation

Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Mohd. Yasin

Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Mohd. Yasin - [1974] 34 STC 147 (All) Issues:Interpretation of Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the turnover of foodgrains for the assessment year 1964-65.Analysis:The judgment of the court, delivered by Justice Gulati, pertains to a reference made under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The primary question raised was whether the sales of foodgrains during a specific period should be considered in determining the turnover of foodgrains under section 3 of the Act. The case involved an assessee who was a dealer in foodgrains, and the assessment year in question was 1964-65.The assessment order initially determined the turnover of sales of foodgrains for a specific period and levied sales tax and purchase tax. Upon appeal, the appellate authority found discrepancies in the assessment but considered sales turnover for a subsequent period to determine tax liability. However, the revising authority disagreed, stating that turnover post a certain date could not be considered. The Commissioner of Sales Tax challenged this decision, leading to the reference before the High Court.Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is the charging section, mandating tax payment based on turnover. The Government, through notifications, set the non-taxable turnover limit for specific goods, such as foodgrains, at Rs. 25,000. Rule 8 of the Act outlines the determination of a dealer's tax liability based on gross turnover, excluding certain transactions like forward contracts.The concept of 'gross turnover' is crucial, as it forms the basis for tax assessment. The judgment references deductions that reduce the gross turnover, emphasizing that only sales liable to tax under section 3 should be included. A precedent involving sales outside the state highlighted that non-taxable sales should not be part of the gross turnover calculation.In the present case, a notification had exempted foodgrains from sales tax, making section 3 inoperative for those goods. Consequently, the turnover of foodgrains post the notification date could not be part of the gross turnover calculation. Citing previous legal interpretations and the impact of notifications under the Act, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, answering the reference question in the negative and awarding costs.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of gross turnover in tax assessment and the exclusion of non-taxable sales. The decision clarifies the treatment of turnover post-notification exemptions, setting a precedent for similar cases under the Act.