1998 (9) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arma, Advocates with him), for the respondents.   S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the appellant.   --------------------------------------------------   The question that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was required to consider in these appeals reads thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ason of the said notification and assessed the assessees accordingly. The assessees' first appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and second appeal to the Board of Revenue were dismissed. The Board of Revenue found that there was "no doubt that soyabean is a leguminous plant and it would have come under pulses, had it not been specifically included as an oil-seed under the Schedule appended to the Act ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntry relating to soyabeans in the Schedule to the Act. There being no entry in the Schedule specifically relating to husk, it could, at best, have been taxed under a residuary entry. There is, in our view, no justification for the argument that the husk of soyabeans falls outside the scope of the said notification because soyabeans have been specifically listed in the Schedule to the Act under the....