TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (1) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.. In the normal course when the petitioner is questioning an order of assessment, this Court would have relegated the parties to avail of the remedies as provided under the statute. However, in this case a clarification has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the effect that ragi flour is taxable under section 5(1) of the Act and consequently the turnover tax is also attracted. The relevant portion of the clarification reads as follows: "Ragi flour Clr.Cr. 841/89-90 dated March 16, 1990: While ragi is exempt under entry 40A of the Fifth Schedule, ragi flour cannot be regarded as exempt, since in the market ragi flour and ragi are regarded as two different commercial commodities, much in the manner of wheat and wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se that situation would not arise as what this Court has to interpret is the expression "ragi " as used in entry 40A coming under the Fifth Schedule. It is also pointed out that in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills' case [1993] 91 STC 408 the Supreme Court was concerned in interpreting the effect of wheat as having been put in Schedule IV of the Act, which are declared goods and wheat flour and wheat are both subjected to tax at single point under Schedule II of the Act. It is submitted that ragi is not subjected to tax at all since it is put in the Fifth Schedule, which is exempt from taxation and there is no other entry relating to ragi flour. When goods are non-Schedule items then section 5(1) would be attracted subject to multi-point levy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsumed and they are different goods in a commercial sense. Thus, it is stated that the principles set out in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills' case [1993] 91 STC 408 (SC) must be applied to the facts of the present case. It is also contended that the decision in Alladi Venkateswarlu's case [1978] 41 STC 394 (SC) turned upon the peculiar entries available in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and therefore the principles stated therein should not be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 8.. In order to understand correctly the process of enumeration of goods for purposes of taxation in any enactment I must refer to the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC). In that decision it is stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commodity, but it was another form of rice. In the same manner it must be held that merely because ragi is subjected to grinding all that it would result is another form of ragi making it more useful and less cumbersome for consumption. Indeed, the Supreme Court noticed this aspect in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills's case [1993] 91 STC 408 at page 421 as follows: "..........The High Courts while applying the principle of this judgment to the question at issue herein ignored the fact that the said decision did not deal with the meaning and ambit of the several sub-clauses in clause (i) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and also the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Act did not place parched rice and puffed rice under separate entries in....