TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber, 1974? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified in holding that dal does not come within the ambit of the expression "all forms of gram" and is therefore not subject to purchase tax with effect from 1st October, 1974 and is subject to sales tax from the said date? 2.. The facts: For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessing officer, while making the assessment under section 12(4) of the Act, imposed sales tax on the transactions of different kinds of dal made by the dealer and raised an additional demand of Rs. 5,437 on the ground that dal was a different item than gram and could not be included in any form of gram, a notified commodity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shape;........" I am therefore inclined to take the view in favour of the dealer that when the notification. stated all forms of gram and not all varieties of gram, then obviously, it intended to include the various species and some of its by-products as well. Some of the decisions which I may presently refer to also support this view that unless gram was reduced into an entirely different species, such as, besan or shattu, it continued to remain as a broken form of gram itself. Now let us proceed to consider some of the cases. Reliance was placed by the dealer at the reference stage on the unreported decision of this Court in S.J.C. No. 15 of 1976 dated 16th July, 1980 (State of Orissa v. Baijnath Flour Mills) where it was laid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew was also taken in Baijnath Flour Mills' case (S.J.C. No. 15 of 1976 dated 16th July, 1980-Orissa High Court). There, the dealer having similarly purchased grams had sold them after breaking them into pieces (dana). On a reference made to this Court at the instance of the Revenue, relying upon the decision in Ram Chandra Badrinarayan's case [1974] 33 STC 83 (Orissa) the reference was answered against the Revenue. 6.. In the meantime, a Bench of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Haji Ebrahim Haji Jamal Noor Mohammed & Co. [1975] 35 STC 275, had occasion to consider an almost similar question. The dealer after purchasing grams on furnishing the declaration converted them into dal and sold as such. On a similar question being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court decision. Ram Chandra Badrinarayan v. State of Orissa [1974] 33 STC 83 (Orissa) does not lay down good law on this point." 7.. The above observation was noticed by this Court in the unreported decision in Baijnath Flour Mills' case (S.J.C. No. 15 of 1976 dated 16th July, 1980) and the earlier view in [1974] 33 STC 83 (Orissa) (Ram Chandra Badrinarayan v. State of Orissa) was reiterated. The Supreme Court case was distinguished on the ground that the case of paddy and rice was entirely different as "there would be hardly any identity except that one was contained within the other before conversion. The two commodities meet different needs of the people. But in the case of a gram and a dana, the position was different as 'whether....