Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether burfee sold as plain khoya burfee was a "milk product" exempt under entry 12 of the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi; (ii) Whether muthri was "bread" exempt under entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the same Act.
Issue (i): Whether burfee sold as plain khoya burfee was a "milk product" exempt under entry 12 of the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi.
Analysis: Classification of items in sales tax entries must be determined according to common parlance and commercial understanding. Applying the earlier binding view that ice cream could be treated as a milk product, plain burfee made from khoya and principally based on milk could not be excluded merely because nuts or silver leaf were added. The later change in the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 did not affect the position for the period in question.
Conclusion: Burfee was held to be a milk product and the question was answered in favour of the dealer.
Issue (ii): Whether muthri was "bread" exempt under entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi.
Analysis: The term "bread" was construed in its ordinary and commercial sense. Bread is ordinarily baked, commonly associated with yeast and bakery sale, whereas muthri is a fried item made by a halwai. On that understanding, muthri could not be equated with bread.
Conclusion: Muthri was held not to be bread and the question was answered in favour of the department.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly for the dealer and partly for the department, with exemption upheld for burfee but denied for muthri.
Ratio Decidendi: Fiscal entries are to be interpreted in their common and commercial sense, and an item is covered by an exemption entry only if it answers that description in ordinary trade parlance.