1987 (10) TMI 358 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court denies sales tax exemption for rice bran, distinguishing it from husk under tax laws.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the sales tax exemption notification did not include rice bran within the definition of 'husk,' thus denying ... - Issues: Interpretation of sales tax exemption notification for rice bran under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.The judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with the interpretation of a sales tax exemption notification regarding rice bran under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner, a registered dealer, contended that rice bran should be considered as 'husk' and thus exempt from sales tax under the notification dated 1st April, 1982. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax disagreed with this interpretation, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking to quash the order disallowing the exemption for rice bran.The petitioner relied on a previous decision of a Division Bench of the Court where sales of paddy husk were exempt from tax under a different notification. However, the Court distinguished the previous case as it did not involve rice bran specifically. Further, the Court referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court which held that rice bran cannot be considered as 'bhusi' or husk, as it is a product obtained during the polishing process of rice and not from the husk of grains.Additionally, the petitioner presented an extract from a botanical book indicating that the seed coat of rice is part of the grain itself, suggesting that rice bran should be considered part of rice and not as a separate entity like husk. The Court also analyzed an earlier notification from 1967 which made a clear distinction between husk and bran, indicating that bran was not considered as husk in that notification.Ultimately, the Court held that the notification dated 1st April, 1982 did not intend to grant exemption for rice bran based on the historical treatment of bran as a separate category from husk in previous notifications. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned orders did not contain any manifest error of law or jurisdiction justifying their quashing. The petitioner's claim for exemption for rice bran under the notification was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed without any costs awarded to either party.