TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (3) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Sales Tax Act. ("Declared goods" are those which are declared under section 14 to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce). Section 15 of the Central Act places certain restrictions and conditions in regard to the tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. It says that every sales tax law of the State, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, shall be subject to the restrictions contained in the said section. The restrictions are: (a) the tax payable on such goods shall not exceed 4 per cent and shall not be levied at more than one stage; (b) if tax has been levied under a State law in respect of a sale or purchase inside the State and such declared goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and taxed under the Central enactment, the tax paid under the State law shall be reimbursed to the person effecting such inter-State sale; (c) where a tax has been levied under the State law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any paddy, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy; and (d)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Act, while explanation III corresponds to clause (c) in section 15. Explanation III which is relevant for our purposes reads thus: "For the purposes of items 21 and 22, where a tax has been levied under this Act in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any paddy, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy." A reading of section 15(c) of the Central Act along with entries 21 and 22 in the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and explanation III appended thereto, discloses that though paddy and rice are different goods, the Parliament and the State Legislature wanted to tax them only at one stage, evidently because rice constitutes the staple food of the nation, the price of which should be maintained as low as possible. These provisions, therefore, provide that where tax has been levied on the sale or purchase of paddy inside the State, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy "shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy". The underlying assumption of these provisions is that the price of rice will always be higher than the price of paddy, which is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities confirmed the same. Appeals were preferred both against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, as well as the appellate authorities, all of which were considered together by the Tribunal and disposed of under a common order. The contention of Sri S. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is this: According to section 15(c) and explanation III aforesaid, tax is payable only on rice, and not on paddy from which the said rice is derived; it is for this reason that the said provisions provide that tax paid on paddy shall be reduced from out of the tax payable on rice. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to refund of the tax paid on the difference amount. ("Difference amount" means and refers to the amount of purchase price of paddy in excess of sale price of rice derived from such paddy); the word "reduced" in the said two provisions should be understood in an equitable manner; in the circumstances of these cases, the said expression should be read and understood as "reimbursed", as has been done by a Bench of this Court in Aitha Narasaiah & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1979] 43 STC 183. We do not find it possible to agree with the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the result, having regard to the provisions in section 8(2A), section 15(c) of the Central Act 74 of 1956, item 22 read with explanation III in the Third Schedule of the State Act 6 of 1957, 'paddy' out of which rice is procured involved in inter-State trade, we hold tax paid on paddy is liable to be (reduced) reimbursed. The writ petitions are allowed with the directions indicated above and for the costs we make no order." The contention of the learned counsel is that the Bench has read, understood and interpreted the expression "reduced" as "reimbursed", and that the same should be followed here. It is not possible to agree. In that case the court enunciated three propositions, none of which are relevant here, nor have they been relied upon. The whole contention is that since the Bench understood the word "reduced" as "reimbursed", a direction for reimbursement should follow in these cases as well. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the judgment of a court should not be read as a statute. The above direction has to be understood in the context of the facts of that case. Indeed, the learned Judge who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench, took care to use both the ....