1973 (12) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inner husk is separated and it is called by the name of polish or rice bran. According to the facts given in the statement of the case and in the revisional order, the rice bran is usually sold by the dealers as cattle fodder. It is also processed by the oil-mills for extracting oil. The assessee claimed that rice bran was exempt from sales tax by virtue of Notification No. ST-3471/X dated 16th July, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer repelled this claim. He held that rice bran was taxable as an unclassified item. This view was upheld in appeal. The assessee took the dispute in revision. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, held that rice bran is the inner husk of rice. It will be covered by the term bhusi as used in the relevant notification and so ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usi, chhilka, chokar, cotton seed, gowar and oil-cake. Evidently, if a commodity is not bhusi, chuni, chhilka, chokar, cotton seed, gowar or oil-cake, it will none the less be cattle fodder depending upon its characteristics and user. For the assessee reliance was placed upon Omrao Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanpur v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur[1974] 33 S.T.C. 343. (Civil Mise. Writ Petition No. 2916 of 1973 decided on 12th November, 1973). In that case, it was held that de-oiled rice bran was cattle fodder. On the strength of this decision the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the question referred to us requires reframing. According to him the question should be reframed as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....framing the question as "whether rice bran was cattle fodder even though it is not bhusi". The learned counsel for the assessee urged that if we refuse to reframe the question, the position would be that even though the assessee raised this question specifically before the Judge (Revisions), the assessee will now be precluded from having a finding on that point. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd.[1968] 68 I.T.R. 630 at 637 (S.C.). , it was held that after the High Court decides a reference the Appellate Tribunal has to decide the appeal again after rehearing the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the observations of the High Court and according to law. These observations are equally applicable to a ....