TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (3) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the applicants may be briefly put thus: The applicants have been carrying on the business of selling sweetmeats since 1361 (RN-696 of 1989) and 1350 B.S. (RN-2 of 1990). They obtained licence from the municipality to carry on the trade. Under a misconception of law they got themselves registered and paid sales tax for some years from the inception of business. There being, however, no provision in the Act that sweetmeats are taxable, the applicant and some others filed a writ application under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the demand, being C.R. 7395 (U) of 1985. Subsequently, the applicants received notices of demand arising out of several cases in connection with the proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(e) eight per centum of such part of his taxable turnover as represents sales of goods other than those referred to in clauses (a), (aa), (aaa), (b), (bb), (bbb), (c), (cc), (cc-i), (ccc), (cccc), (d) and (dd)." No tax is payable under the Act on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule I subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof. Item 7 of Schedule I as it stood prior to April 1, 1985, was as under: 1 2 "7. Cooked foods, other than Except when sold in sealed cakes, pastries, biscuits and containers." sweetmeats, sold at one time to a person at a price of not more than ten rupees. This item has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1985 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax must not violate a fundamental right such as that in article 14, article 19 and that the law must not contravene any specific provision of the Constitution. 8.. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that there is no presumption about tax and unless expressly provided for, the demand becomes unlawful. The specific grievance is that sweetmeats not being specially provided for in any of the sub-clauses of section 5(1), it could not be demanded with the aid of the residuary clause. In support of the contention, reference was made to the case of Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Municipal Committee, reported in [1958] SCJ 604. In particular, our attention was drawn to a passage from Crawford on Statutory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure may not have intended, but which he is entitled to on the construction of the statute, the court should not deprive him of that advantage. 9.. These propositions of law are well-settled but we fail to see how this helps the applicants. The applicants are not sought to be brought within the net of taxation by implication or with the aid of any presumption. The demand is made at the general rate of 8 per cent as provided in section 5(1)(e). The fact that specific rates for specific items have been prescribed in other sub-clauses of the section, does not mean that levy of tax on any item other than those is unauthorised. The scheme of the Act is to provide specific rates for certain specified items, and then prescribe a general rate for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification in column 2, were exempt. In other words, sweetmeats sold at a particular price and not in containers, were not exempt. Item 101, however, makes it exempt with effect from June 1, 1987. In regard to that also it was argued that the entry as fashioned, makes it inconsistent with reference to other entries. Item 101 speaks of sweetmeats other than cakes, pastries and biscuits and it is pointed out that specific provision has been made for exemption of biscuits in item 74. Therefore, it was argued that while under item 74 biscuits are exempt, it is not exempt under item 101. Item 74 while exempting biscuits, makes it clear by the entry in column 2 that it is not available to biscuits manufactured or processed in a factory as defined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I [section 5(2)(a)(i)] and (2) other sales as prescribed under rule 3 [section 5(2)(a)(vi)]. That being the general scheme of the Act, the statement relied on by the applicants cannot be the sole guiding factor in determining whether sweetmeats were always exempt. The language of erstwhile item 7 and the present item 101 of Schedule I makes it abundantly clear that sales of sweetmeats were tax-free only with effect from June 1, 1987. Therefore, even if the Statement of Objects and Reasons casts some doubt (which we do not think it does) that doubt stands repelled by the clear language used in effecting the amendment. Then again, the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment in 1987 could not be utilised for interpreting the provisi....