Strict construction of taxing provisions bars implied conditions where gur was used for registered khandsari manufacture.

A purchasing dealer using gur in accordance with its registration certificate for manufacture of khandsari was not liable to purchase tax under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Court applied the principle that a taxing provision must be strictly construed and no additional condition can be read in by implication. Because the gur was purchased and used for the stated registered purpose, the proviso did not apply merely because the finished goods were treated as tax-free goods. The earlier Full Bench view was affirmed, and the later Supreme Court decision was relied on as settling the interpretation in the dealer's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purchasing dealer was liable to pay tax on gur purchased on the basis of its registration certificate for manufacture of khandsari under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The earlier Full Bench view holding the dealer not liable was affirmed. The controlling principle applied was that a taxing provision must be construed strictly and nothing can be read into it by intendment. The relevant proviso was held inapplicable because the gur was purchased and used for the very purpose stated in the registration certificate, namely manufacture of khandsari, and no further condition could be implied merely because the goods manufactured were treated as tax-free goods. The later Supreme Court decision was treated as settling the controversy and supporting the same interpretation.

Conclusion: The dealer was not liable to pay tax on the purchase of gur under section 5(2)(a)(ii).

---