TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1956 (8) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision petition, the assessee attacks the validity of the tax on the ground that groundnut kernel does not fall within the ambit of rule 4(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. The concerned rules are as follows: "4(1) Save as provided in sub-rule (2) the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which goods are sold by him. (2) In the case of the undermentioned goods, the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which the goods are bought by him. (a) groundnut, (b) cashew, cotton (including kapas) bought by spinning mill or by dealer who exports outside the State." It is urged that the expression "groundnut" cannot incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of it in that rule gives a clue to the interpretation of the word "groundnut". The expressions "groundnut" and "kernel" are used in rule 18 only for the purpose of calculating the oil to be extracted from the groundnut and the kernel. The formula to be adopted in estimating the oil to be obtained from crushing the unshelled as well as the shelled nuts is given in the Explanation. That Explanation recites: "For the purpose of this sub-rule(a) 143 lb. of groundnut shall be taken to be equivalent to 100 lb. of kernel; (b) 143 lb. of groundnut or 100 lb. kernel shall, when converted into oil, be taken to yield 40 lb. of oil; and (c) one candy of oil shall be taken to be equivalent to 500 lb. of oil." This Explanation shows the object of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The subject is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes the obligation." "In a Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. A construction for example, which would have the effect of making a person liable to pay the same tax twice in respect of the same subjectmatter would not be adopted unless the words were very clear and precise to that effect. In a case of reasonable doubt the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted." No exception can be taken to the proposition as enunc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the word "groundnut" for, in the former case, cotton cannot, by any stretch of imagination, comprise kapas, which is a generic term. No help can, therefore, be derived from comparing the sub-clauses (a) and (b) of rule 4(2). We will next turn our attention to the judgment of the Hyderabad High Court in Kishenlal Oil Mills, Hyderabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Hyderabad[1955] 6 S.T.C. 650., called in aid by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was there laid down that the word "groundnut" occurring in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules should be interpreted to mean unshelled groundnut produced by the agriculturist and not the kernel. The learned Judges thought that this conclusion followed from a Full....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re unable to subscribe to the theory propounded therein. Our opinion is in accord with a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Motilal Hari Prasad v. State of Andhra[1955] 6 S.T.C. 654. It was ruled by Subba Rao, C.J., (as he then was) who spoke for the Court, that rule 4(2)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, applied to groundnut kernel equally, inasmuch as the word "groundnut" was a comprehensive term which took in kernel. The learned Judges who decided the above case considered the various aspects of the matter and reached the conclusion set out above. To the same effect is the decision of the Madras High Court in Radhakrishna Groundnut Oil Mills v. State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 357. On this d....