TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (2) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same and boiling it with lime. The ryots then sell the jaggery through the petitioners, who charge them 4 per cent commission on such sales. Admittedly, the liability of the commission agent is co-extensive with that of the principal. In the assessment proceedings for the relevant years, the petitioners contended that their principals are not liable to tax on jaggery as they are not dealers within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the "Act". Since the principals cannot be taxed, the commission agents are not exigible to tax. The commercial tax authorities rejected the said contention and assessed the petitioners to sales tax. It is to challenge the correctness of the assessment orders for the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 1st August, 1963. The contention was that an explanation to a provision is not expected to add. In this case, since the explanation enacted subsequently in 1963 adds altogether a new case which does not legitimately come within the main definition of "dealer", as it stood prior to the said amendment, the explanation should be held as bad. In the alternative, it was argued that if the explanation is considered to be good, even then it must also satisfy the requirement of the main definition. Accordingly, it was submitted that since the ryots do not carry on the business in jaggery, they cannot be treated as dealers for the purposes of the Act. Now, it was not disputed that if the explanation is read without in any manner influenced by i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which it is appended. The purpose of the explanation ordinarily is not to limit the scope of the main provision. It is plain that when any phrase, word, expression or provision in an enactment is explained by the legislature, the provision has to be applied with the authoritative explanation; for the very object of the authoritative explanation is to enable the court to understand the provision in the light of the explanation: see Balaji Singh v. Chakka GangammaA.I.R. 1927 Mad. 85 at 88. In fact when an explanation is appended to a section to explain its meaning, it becomes a part and parcel of the section: see Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar[1955] 6 S.T.C. 441 at 582 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661 at 733. An explanation very often, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to such a provision. The mere description of a certain provision such as explanation is not decisive of its true meaning. If the language of the provision is clear it will prevail over the title if it is wrongly given. The interpretation must obviously depend upon the words used in the provision. The safest course in such cases is to apply the fundamental general rule to construe the explanation according to its own terms having regard to its context and setting. It is of course true that if the provision is capable of two interpretations, one in accordance with the title and the other inconsistent with it, then the one in accordance with the title must be accepted: see State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd.[1953] 4 S.T.C. 133 at 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bring such growers within the definition of a "dealer". That could not have been done by entitling the provision as a proviso. It would have been inappropriate and misleading. The argument that a non obstante clause could have been used instead of explanation is equally devoid of substance. A clause beginning with "notwithstanding anything contained in the section" is appended with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the section mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to say that in spite of the provision mentioned in the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full operation or that the provision embraced in the non obstante clause will not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty in rejecting the contention of the appellants. The alternative argument that over and above the requirement of explanation II, the grower referred to in explanation II must also satisfy the requirements of the main definition of "dealer" is without any substance. A deeming provision such as explanation II creates a legal fiction. It must therefore logically be taken to its conclusion. The second explanation does it. It is a self-contained and a complete provision in regard to the kind of growers mentioned therein. It stands apart from the main definition, but by a legal fiction is made part of it. Once such a grower is considered to be a dealer for the purpose of the Act, as is clear from explanation II, then the matter concludes there....