Purchase tax on jaggery from an unregistered seller remains valid despite a temporary gap in the machinery rule.

Jaggery purchased from an agriculturist who was not a registered dealer fell within the proviso to item 1 of the Fifth Schedule, so purchase tax was leviable because the statutory condition turned on the seller's registration status, not on any broader dealer liability. The temporary omission of jaggery from rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 did not defeat the levy, because the Fifth Schedule itself fixed the taxable event and rate and the machinery provisions remained capable of determining and collecting the tax. The purchase levy on jaggery therefore continued to operate during the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether jaggery purchased from an agriculturist who was not a registered dealer attracted the proviso to item 1 of the Fifth Schedule so as to make the tax leviable at the point of purchase. (ii) Whether the omission to include jaggery in rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 between 11 January 1976 and 18 March 1981 rendered the levy and collection of tax on such purchases inoperative for want of machinery provisions.

Issue (i): Whether jaggery purchased from an agriculturist who was not a registered dealer attracted the proviso to item 1 of the Fifth Schedule so as to make the tax leviable at the point of purchase.

Analysis: The proviso applied where jaggery was sold to a dealer by a person who was not a registered dealer otherwise than through an agent. The expression used in the proviso was "registered dealer", and the Court held that the decisive fact was registration under the Act, not whether the seller was otherwise liable to be treated as a dealer. Since the seller from whom the jaggery was purchased was not a registered dealer, the statutory condition for invoking the proviso was satisfied.

Conclusion: The proviso applied, and tax was leviable on the assessee at the point of purchase.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission to include jaggery in rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 between 11 January 1976 and 18 March 1981 rendered the levy and collection of tax on such purchases inoperative for want of machinery provisions.

Analysis: Section 5(3) and section 5(4) of the Act contemplated determination, assessment, levy, and collection in the prescribed manner, and rule 5 supplied the machinery for that purpose. Although jaggery was added to rule 5(2) only in 1981, the Fifth Schedule itself fixed the taxable event and rate, and specifically directed levy at the point of purchase where the proviso applied. The omission in rule 5 did not nullify the substantive charging effect of the Fifth Schedule, because the tax payable on the purchase of jaggery could still be determined under that Schedule.

Conclusion: The absence of a specific entry in rule 5(2) did not make the levy inoperative, and tax remained exigible on purchase of jaggery during the relevant period.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme of the Fifth Schedule, read with the charging and machinery provisions, sustained the purchase levy on jaggery bought from an unregistered dealer, and the revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing entry expressly fixes the taxable event and rate, a temporary omission in the procedural or machinery rule does not defeat the levy if the tax can still be ascertained and enforced under the substantive provision.

---