TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the petitioner sold palm oil during the period 22nd August, 1977, to 12th February, 1978, worth Rs. 6,90,364.55; secondly, the palm oil sold by the petitioner had been imported from outside this country; thirdly, the petitioner had not charged special or general sales tax from buyers of palm oil and, lastly, in the return for the relevant period, the petitioner had not deposited sales tax according to law on account of sale of palm oil during the aforementioned period. On 15th December, 1976, the State Government issued a notification (the English version of which is annexure 1), which was to the effect that in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Governor by section 6(3a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Ordinance (Bihar Ordinance No. 209....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27th February, 1978 (annexure 4). According to this order, palm oil fell in the category of vegetable oil and was exigible to tax at the rate of *Transliterated from Hindi. 7 per cent and that it was not included within the expression "palm products". Annexure 5 is a circular from the Commissioner of Sales Tax to all the Sales Tax Officers in regard to levy of tax on refined palm oil. It was clarified by this letter that palm oil was not a palm product, but was a specie of vegetable oil. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ by quashing annexures 3, 4 and 5. 3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echanical processes. 6.. The question whether a processed article is the same as its source or not has been the subject-matter of consideration in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The decision in Ganesh Trading Co., Karnal v. State of Haryana[1973] 32 S.T.C. 623 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1362.completely negatives the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner. The principle firmly established by the Supreme Court is that in finding out the true meaning of entries mentioned in the Sales Tax Act, what is relevant is not the dictionary meaning but how those entries are understood in common parlance, specially in commercial circles. In the case of Ganesh Trading Company[1973] 32 S.T.C. 623 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1362., the question f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he mechanical process through which an article has to pass is a valid criteria for determining whether the end-produce is different or not. Palm oil in that sense is not derived from palm by natural process or manufacture. The oil is obtained by subjecting palm to a mechanical process of crushing and so it may be the product of copra, but not of palm. If the reasoning advanced by Mr. Jain for the petitioner were to be extended to its logical conclusion, every item on this earth could be traceable to earth and water, which are certainly not taxable. That, in my view, would not be a reasonable interpretation. Palm oil itself goes in the production of several articles, soap, hair oil, etc. In my view, all those products cannot be covered by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pression "palm products". I have mentioned earlier that the expression used in Hindi is tar ke saman*. This expression can include *Transliterated from Hindi. only articles derived from palm in its natural state. Further, if the expression "palm products" in item 12 was meant to convey products from palm trees in its widest amplitude, there was no point in saying "palm-gur and palm products". It is well-known that palm-gur is obtained from palm juice or toddy after it has been processed. It is obvious, therefore, that the expression "palm products" did not include processed articles derived from tree. But exemption was given only to palm-gur, which is a processed form of toddy. Thirdly, I am doubtful if palm oil can be extracted from all ....