TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (6) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, therefore, could not be subjected to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Despite such a conclusion reached, the Tribunal remanded the case for determination of the question whether the said commodities were actually subjected to a levy of additional duties of excise under the Central Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred T.R.C. No. 14 of 1965 contending that once the said commodities were held to be included in the term "sugar" which was exempt from tax under the Act, the order of remand was unwarranted. In two other appeals pending before the Tribunal which were also between M/s. Paro & Co. and the State of Andhra Pradesh (Tribunal Appeals Nos. 343 of 1964 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... context provided in the Act. Originally, sugar was one of the goods subjected to single point sales tax under the Act leviable under section 5(3)(a). Such a tax could be validly levied by the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Second Finance Commission recommended that it would be in the interests of the public if sales tax on certain goods including "sugar" is replaced by additional excise duties. One of the suggestions made by the Finance Commission was that the Parliament may impose additional excise duties on the goods mentioned in its report and distribute the proceeds on some fixed basis between the several States which agree to remove sales tax on the goods in question. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m additional excise duty could be levied by the Central Government was exempted from payment of tax on the said commodity by the State. This in short is the historical background showing how and in what circumstances "sugar" was removed from Schedule II and added to Schedule V of the Act and was thus exempted from tax. It is significant to note that no such term as "sugar candy" was in Schedule II. Likewise no such term as "sugar candy" is used in Schedule V. The Central Act also which merely defined the term "sugar" did not expressly refer to "sugar candy" in any of its items as evidently sugar included sugar candy which is but a purer form of sugar. In the Finance Act No. XIII of 1950, "sugar" has been defined to mean any form of sugar co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was also held that the word "sugar" in entry 47 was intended to include within its ambit all forms of sugar, that is to say, sugar of any shape or texture, colour or density and by whatever name it is called. This view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers[1967] 19 S.T.C. 24 at p. 30 (S.C.). Apart from all other considerations, prima facie, it is difficult to comprehend that "sugar candy" can be other than purified sugar itself, for it contains no other ingredient but sugar. If sugar tablets are to be included in the expression "sugar"-and we do not see any reason why they should not be included therein-there is no reason why "sugar candy" should be excluded therefrom. It is, however, argu....