2004 (4) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is taxable at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains despite the fact that dalia is entirely a different commodity? 2.. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. During the course of argument learned Standing Counsel confined to the arguments to the question No. 2 only and did not seriously press question No. 1, it being question of fact. 4.. Therefore the only question left for decision is whether "dalia" is taxable at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains or it is entirely a different commodity. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The dealer-opposite party is a registered dealer and carried on business of foodgrains, oil-seed, khal, and ata, etc. The assessing authority did not accept the contentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....poses of this sub-section, split or processed foodgrains, such as in the form of dal, shall be deemed to be different from unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains, and accordingly, nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to prevent the imposition, levy or collection of the tax in respect of the first purchases of split or processed foodgrains merely because tax had been imposed, levied or collected earlier in respect of the first purchases of those foodgrains in their unsplit or unprocessed form." A division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Badrimal Hiralal (Sales Tax Reference No. 353 of 1970 vide judgment dated May 20, 1971) interpreted the aforesaid Explanation II and held that the aforesaid Explanation i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v Nath Rai Biyani v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2000 UPTC 52, has no application to the present case. In the aforesaid case assessment years involved were 1964-65, etc., up to the assessment year 197172. The controversy involved in the aforesaid case was decided in the light of Explanation II as stood from time to time. The said Explanation, to my mind, has no application, as in the present case the dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. Since Explanation II has no application for the subsequent period November 14, 1971, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 25 STC 118 will hold the field again. Dehusking and breaking whole dal into pieces as was held therein would not br....