Plain-language interpretation of exemption notifications upheld for spirit products, with sugarcane transport charges excluded from turnover.

Exemption notifications are construed according to their plain and unambiguous language, and spirit not meant for consumption as liquor fell within the exemption for "spirit other than liquor"; rectified spirit, denatured spirit and methylated spirit were therefore exempt. Transport charges paid directly to lorry owners for sugarcane were, on concurrent factual findings, not part of the purchase price or purchase turnover and were not includible absent a specific challenge to that finding. The purchase turnover of firewood was also held not liable to tax, the issue having been governed by an earlier ruling. The revision cases consequently failed and the assessments were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether transport charges paid in relation to the purchase of sugarcane were includible in the purchase turnover; (ii) whether rectified spirit, denatured spirit and methylated spirit were exempt under Notification S.R.O. No. 402/64; (iii) whether the purchase turnover of firewood was liable to tax.

Issue (i): whether transport charges paid in relation to the purchase of sugarcane were includible in the purchase turnover.

Analysis: The appellate authorities had concurrently found, on the materials, that the transport charges were paid directly to the lorry owners by the society and not as an amount forming part of the purchase price paid to the growers. In the absence of a specific challenge to that concurrent finding, the question was not entertained.

Conclusion: The transport charges were not includible in the purchase turnover and the finding stood in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether rectified spirit, denatured spirit and methylated spirit were exempt under Notification S.R.O. No. 402/64.

Analysis: The notification exempted sale of "spirit other than liquor". Reading the language in its plain and ordinary sense, and considering the explanatory definition of "liquor", the exemption was held to cover spirit not meant for consumption as liquor. Rectified spirit, denatured spirit and methylated spirit fell within that description.

Conclusion: The exemption applied and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the purchase turnover of firewood was liable to tax.

Analysis: The question had already been concluded against the Revenue by the earlier ruling relied on by the Court, and that view governed the issue.

Conclusion: The purchase turnover of firewood was not liable to tax and the issue was answered against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision cases failed on all the questions decided and the tax assessments were not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption notifications are to be construed according to their clear and unambiguous language, and a concurrent factual finding on the nature of a payment will be upheld absent a specific challenge.

---