MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS RAMALINGESWARA OIL MILL JAVA KRISHNA OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1988-9-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
September 14,1988
MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS,MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS,RAMALINGESWARA OIL MILL,JAVA KRISHNA OIL MILLS
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH,COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
G I T ANDHRA PRADESH VS. TAJ MAHAL HOTEL SECUNDERABAD [APPROVED]AMARA PURUSHOTHAM MAMIDI OBAIAH AND CO UPPUGUNDUR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [APPROVED]
SIKAKOLLU SUBBARAO SUBBAIAO PARTNER SINGARAYAKONDA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [APPROVED]
Cited Judgements :-
REGIONAL MANAGER U P COOPERATIVE FEDERATIN LTD VS. ADDTIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JANSHI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-226] [REFERRED TO]DINAKAR PROCESS VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PRATAP RAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
MANUELMONY MATRICULATION SCHOOL VS. PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT HIGH COURT CAMPUS [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-148] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER VS. DYNAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER VS. DYNAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, THIYAGARAJAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING VS. REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION AND MR. T.K. RAVINDRANATH [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-310] [REFERRED TO]
TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAHARA INDIA SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-234] [REFERRED TO]
FOUNTAIN HEAD DEVELOPERS VS. MARIA ARCANGELA SEQUEIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
Sundaram Finance Limited VS. M K Kurian [LAWS(MAD)-2006-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. A. BALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDER AHUJA VS. SNEHA AHUJA [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
BELDIH CLUB JAMSHEDPNR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT JAMSHEDPUR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK AND CHEMICALS LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
VIOM NETWORK LTD VS. S TEL PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKUMAR GOPALDAS AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SARASWAT VS. RICHA OJHA SARASWAT [LAWS(CHH)-2018-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-231] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-281] [REFERRED TO]
CHATTAR SINGH VS. SUBHASH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-329] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAK BHARTI CO OPERATIVE LTD VS. RAMESH CHANDER BAWA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
VELLANKI FRAME WORKS, A SOLE PROPRIETORY CONCERN VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHINAWALTAIR CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
R K TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
PONDS INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: WELLMAN INCANDESCENT INDIA LTD. VS. WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS VS. PARTH POLY WOOVEN PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-260] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VIJAYA BANK [LAWS(KAR)-2005-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
COIMBATORE DISTRICT AIDED SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-156] [REFERRED TO]
GANESHARAM MODAJI PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
THERESA JOSE VS. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-157] [REFERRED TO]
ITI LIMITED VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(SC)-2015-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD VS. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-145] [REFERRED TO]
I T I LTD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARA INDIA SAVINGS & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. ASSTT CIT [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-187] [REFERRED]
RAJENDRA NATH GUPTA VS. RAVINDRA NATH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-324] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. P. RAMESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI THAKUR (SMT.) VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
M R TOBACCO PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SARSWATI STONE CRUSHERS VS. URJA VIBHAG [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
C S SUBRAMANIAN VS. KUMARASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-1994-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
BALBEER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-124] [REFERRED]
UTTAM CHAND KISHAN DASS VS. D C M SHRI RAM INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
P C JAIN VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2013-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
FOUNTAIN HEAD DEVELOPERS VS. MARIA ARCANGELA SEQUEIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-239] [REFERRED]
VIVA HIGHWAYS LTD. VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ JAIN INTERIM RESOLUTION VS. AXIS BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ANAND SONBHADRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NIKHIL MAZUMDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. VS. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-151] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION VS. VEERESH MALIK [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-331] [REFERRED TO]
HAKKIMUDDIN TAHERBHAI SHAKOR (TRUSTEE) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT SINGH VS. ESTATE OFFICER DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. RKDF INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADESAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
ABRAHAM MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. C SURESH BABU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
SASWATI MAJHI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
ROCKLAND HOTELS LTD. AND ORS. VS. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PRINCIPAL BENCH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-134] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD SAFETY & STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. DANISCO (INDIA) PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
BHALCHANDRA BHAGWAN KALWADE VS. EDUCATION OFFICER Z P AHMEDNAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2003-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
PAREKH PRINTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED INDEM MECHANICAL PVT LTD VS. WEST BENGAL SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD VS. GOVT.OF N.C.T OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Ranganathan, J. -
(1.)A common question is involved in all these matters which are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. The question is whether tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake are entitled to exemption under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question arises in the following circumstances.
(2.)Section 8 of the Act confers an exemption from sales tax in respect of certain goods. It provides that:
'Subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed including conditions as to licence fees, a dealer who deals in the goods specified in the fourth schedule shall be exempt from tax under this Act in respect of such goods'.
Entry 7 in the fourth Schedule was 'tobacco and all its products.'
(3.)The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amara Purushotham Mamidi Obaian and Co. v. State of A. P., (1972) 29 STC 654, was called upon to consider whether tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake were exempt from sales tax under the above provision. The Bench held that tobacco seeds could be said to be tobacco only so long as they remain attached to the plant. They, however, ceased to be tobacco the moment they are removed from the plant. Thereafter, they may be considered to be a product of tobacco. But they constitute a separate and a distinct class of goods with independent properties and potentialities not the same as those of the parent plant. Products manufactured out of tobacco seed could not be said to be products of tobacco. The Court, in this context, referred to the analogy of cotton seeds, which have been considered to be distinct from cotton. The above Bench decision was rendered in spite of the wide words of the exemption, which covered not only tobacco in its comprehensive sense but also all products of tobacco.
(2.)Section 8 of the Act confers an exemption from sales tax in respect of certain goods. It provides that:
'Subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed including conditions as to licence fees, a dealer who deals in the goods specified in the fourth schedule shall be exempt from tax under this Act in respect of such goods'.
Entry 7 in the fourth Schedule was 'tobacco and all its products.'
(3.)The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amara Purushotham Mamidi Obaian and Co. v. State of A. P., (1972) 29 STC 654, was called upon to consider whether tobacco seed, tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake were exempt from sales tax under the above provision. The Bench held that tobacco seeds could be said to be tobacco only so long as they remain attached to the plant. They, however, ceased to be tobacco the moment they are removed from the plant. Thereafter, they may be considered to be a product of tobacco. But they constitute a separate and a distinct class of goods with independent properties and potentialities not the same as those of the parent plant. Products manufactured out of tobacco seed could not be said to be products of tobacco. The Court, in this context, referred to the analogy of cotton seeds, which have been considered to be distinct from cotton. The above Bench decision was rendered in spite of the wide words of the exemption, which covered not only tobacco in its comprehensive sense but also all products of tobacco.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.