TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng manufactured and sold by this dealer "fall under the said entry". 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the record minutely with the assistance of the learned counsel. 3. It is an admitted case of the respondent-assessee that it was assessed for the assessment year 1997-98. On the sale of sugar globules, no tax was levied as it was held that in view of entry 39 of Schedule 'B', the same was treated as tax free. The matter was taken up in revision under Section 40 of the Act and vide its order dated 21-12-2000, the turn over of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 15,15,700/-was assessed holding that the goods, i.e., sugar globules, do not fall under entry 39 of Schedule B' of the Act and hence are not tax free. Aggrieved against this order, appeal was preferred before the Sales Tax Tribunal-I, Haryana. Operative part of order dated 21-12-2000 passed by the Tribunal reads as under :- "I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record. I find that the globules produced by the appellant are more than 90% sucrose. I also find that there are enough citations to show that any product which has 90% of mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reported as [1967] 19 STC-24, The State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers. According to him, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even Patasha, Harda and alchidana have also been held to be sugar by the aforesaid judgment. It has further been held that Patasa, Harda and alchidana are only different form of refined sugar which is sucrose sugar contents. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. Nangumal Ram Kishore [1981] 48 STC 277, Paro & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1970] 25 STC 34 and Chunhi Lal Moti Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, 35 STC 198. 7. In Sakarwal Brothers' case (supra), it was held as under:- "The question which we have to consider is whether patasa, harda and alchidana are "forms of sugar containing more than 90 per cent of sucrose" and hence are covered by the definition of entry 47 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act. It is not disputed that patasa, harda and alchidana contain more than 90 per cent of sucrose. It is contended, however, by Mr. Bindra on behalf of the appellant that they are not "forms of sugar" but they are products of sugar and do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....misri and batasha should also be treated as sugar. In most cases, this has been done because "sugar" has itself been defined as sugar in the Central Excise Act. There are no words of limitation in the present case. The words used in our Act, i.e., the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, are "sugar and molasses". It is not provided in the Act that "sugar" is used in its extended meaning or in its restricted meaning. In the U.P. Act, just referred to, the legislature had given a restricted meaning, so khandsari sugar, etc., were not covered. In other cases, we have referred to, the court has held that the word "sugar" should be given a restricted meaning. As has been analysed above, there is no real difference between various types of sugar. They are all produced from the juice of sugarcane which is the principal source of sugar in this country. In some cases, greater refinement leads to a greater percentage of sucrose. The refined product is normally more costly. The mere fact that it is produced in a factory and khandsari sugar and bura sugar may be produced by hand machines, does not mean that the end-product is very different from the other. The natural juice of the sugarcane w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee any reason why they should not be included therein, there is no reason why "sugar candy" should be excluded therefrom. It is, however, argued that if it was intended by the Legislature that sugar in whatever form it may be must be included in the term "sugar" used in Schedule V, the Legislature would have expressed so in clearer terms. It would have used the expression "sugar in all its forms." "But as we have already noticed, having regard to the historic background and the expression used in the Central Act, we do not think there can be any clear context evidencing the intendment of the Legislature that the expression "sugar" used was not confined to sugar in its ordinary form but covered sugar in all its forms provided the sugar element is wholly predominant and that sugar candy is undoubtedly such form of sugar." (emphasis added) 10. In Chuni Lal Moti Lal's case (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have observed as under:- "it is true that entry 47 specifically mentioned sugar to mean in the same sense as item No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which defined "sugar" to mean any form of sugar containing mor....