Supreme Court of India
AVADH SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR & ANOTHER
- Decided
- 22 February 1973
- Judges listed
- K.S. HEGDE
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1973] 3 S.C.R. 546 · 1973 INSC 33
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
HEGDE, J ...... This is an appeal by certificate. The only question that arises for decision is whether groundnut is oilseed. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the groundnut is oilseed. The question is to the nature of groundnut came up for consideration !n connection with the levy of purchase-tax on the purchase of oilseed. The assessee in-this case is a manufacturer of oil and the assessee appears to have purchased groundnuts in large quantity for the manufacture of oil. He contended before the assessing authorities as well as before the High Court, unsuccessfully, that groundnut is not oilseed. In support of that contention, he relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Bakhat Rai & Co. (18 S.T.C. 285) and the decision of a single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ha~ Raj .Choudhri v. J. S. Rajyana, Excise and Taxation Officer (19 S.T.C. 489). These two decisions undoubtedly support his c\)ntention. The learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court have not ,accepted those decisions as laying down the law correctly and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court.
pp. 546–547, margin G
The petitioner in his Writ Petition has definitely ,stated that he purchased groundnuts mostly from cultivators for the manufacture of oil. Hence there is no doubt that he purchased groundnut for the purpose of manufacturing oil.
p. 547, margin C
We shall now proceed to consider whether groundnuts are seeds and further whether they are oilseeds. In finding out the true meianing of term "oilseeds" found in the Sales-tax law in question, we are not to refer to dictionaries. We are to find out the meaning ascribed to that term in commercial parlance. See the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh (19 S.T.C. 469) .. There can hardly be any doubt that in commercial circles growljfnut is dealt with as oilseed. The commercial journals and newspapers while quoting the market price of oilseeds list groundnuts 'as one of the species ol oilseeds. From this, it is clear that in rommercial circles groundnut is treated ·as oilseed.
p. 547, margin C
A seed is one which germinates. It is not disputed that the groundnut germinates. Hence it is undoubtedly seed. The next question .is whether it is generally used for manufacture of -oil. Here agam, there can hardly be any doubt that groundnut is mostly used for 1the manufacture of groundnut oil which is used in the ~anufacture of Dalda and other cooking media. · Groundnut ts one of the items which is mostly used in this country for the manufacture of cooking media.
p. 547, margin E
In '?ur opinion, bolh; the Madhy:a Pradesh High Court and ithe Pun1ab & Haryana High Court were wrong in holding that groundnut is not oilseed.
p. 547, margin G
For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal iS dismissed with costs • .G.C.
p. 547, margin G
Appeal dismiued.
p. 547, margin B