Tax notification interpretation: later concession for trucks and buses did not extend to mini-buses and pick-up vans.

Where a taxing notification specifically named mini-buses and pick-up vans and fixed a reduced rate at 10 per cent, a later notification granting a further concession only to trucks and buses could not be extended by implication to those earlier goods; the higher rate therefore remained applicable. On turnover tax, liability depended on whether the assessee had collected it, and the burden to prove non-collection lay on the assessee. The Board of Revenue was entitled to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry and finding on that question. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mini-buses and pick-up vans were exigible to tax at 10 per cent under the earlier notification or at 9 per cent under the subsequent notification applicable to trucks and buses. (ii) Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the matter for inquiry into whether turnover tax had been collected.

Issue (i): Whether mini-buses and pick-up vans were exigible to tax at 10 per cent under the earlier notification or at 9 per cent under the subsequent notification applicable to trucks and buses.

Analysis: The earlier notification specifically referred to mini-buses and pick-up vans and fixed the reduced rate at 10 per cent. The later notification granted a further reduction only to trucks and buses and did not extend that benefit to mini-buses and pick-up vans. Since the two classes of goods were treated separately in the notifications, the later concession could not be read as applying to the assessee's goods.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the matter for inquiry into whether turnover tax had been collected.

Analysis: Liability to turnover tax depended on whether the assessee had collected it, and the burden to prove non-collection lay on the assessee. The Board granted an opportunity for production of relevant material so that the Additional Commissioner could record a fresh finding on that question. In those circumstances, the remand was held to be proper.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue on both questions, sustaining the rate of tax applied to mini-buses and pick-up vans and upholding the remand on turnover tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing notification specifically names a class of goods, a later notification granting a concession to different named goods cannot be extended by implication to the earlier class, and a remand is justified where the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the non-collection of turnover tax.

---