TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he turnover of these commodities in these years was subjected to tax by the assessing authority whose decision was upheld by the first appellate authority. Under Notification No. ST-4064/X-960(4)-58 dated 25th November, 1958, issued in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, sugar containing more than ninety per cent of sucrose but excluding, inter alia, batasha was exempted unconditionally from payment of sales tax under the Act with effect from 1st July, 1958. This notification was, however, amended with effect from 1st December, 1969, by Notification No. ST-9706/X-900(37)-69 dated 1st December, 1969. The existing entry in the notification of the year 1958 at serial No. 1 was substituted by bringing in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gar under section 4 of the Act. The revising authority was clearly in error in taking the view that the turnover of batasha and illaichidana manufactured by the dealer in these cases was not liable to tax on account of the exemption granted to it by the notification of the year 1958 as amended by Notification No. ST-9706 dated 1st December, 1969. In State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 STC 24 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld the exemption in respect of sale of batasha, harda and alchidana on account of entry No. 47 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which provided exemption from tax on the sale or purchase of "sugar" as defined in item No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The defini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as an unclassified item and subject to tax at the rate of 2 per cent as provided in section 3 of the Act for the reason that khandsari sugar, out of which it was manufactured had been subjected to tax by a notification under section 3-A of the Act. The Bench took the view that once the item came to be included for tax under section 3-A it could not be subjected to tax under section 3. Dealing with the notification dated 25th November, 1958, the Bench observed that the fact that khandsari sugar and batasha had been excluded from the category of sugar exempted under that notification, did not mean that khandsari sugar and batasha were two different commodities. It observed that the intention behind the notification was to exempt sugar co....