1961 (6) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the Explanation read with Schedule III, items 5 and 6. That Explanation reads: "Where a tax has been levied in respect of purchase of paddy under item 5 any subsequent purchase of rice converted from such paddy is not liable to tax under item 6." The contention of the petitioner which he unsuccessfully urged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and repeated before us is that as he paid purchase tax on the paddy, the parched rice prepared out of the same paddy could not be subjected to tax once again. In support of this argument, reliance is placed by Sri Veerabhad. rayya, learned counsel for the petitioner, on Kapildeoram v. J.K. Das[1954] 5 S.T.C. 365; A.I.R. 1954 Assam 170., which contains the proposition that "chira" and "muri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ially a breakfast food easily got ready." The word "rice" cannot have such a wide connotation as "cereal". The Legislature here has advisedly used the expression "paddy and rice". It has not said "paddy and/or all products of paddy". Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the principle embodied in the cited case is correct, since this ruling does not furnish any analogy here. The pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court also is not helpful to the petitioner, since their Lordships have laid down that hydrogenated groundnut oil and groundnut oil could be put to the same uses and that the hydrogenated groundnut oil continues to be groundnut oil in spite of the processing employed for the purpose of rendering the o....