KRISHAN CHANDER DUTIA (SPICE) PVT. LTD versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 23-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
KRISHAN CHANDER DUTIA (SPICE) PVT. LTD. 
A 
l'. 
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 1994 
[B.P. JEENAN REDDY AND Il.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
West Bengal Sa/ex Tax Act, 195.f-Sectio:is 4, 25-Notificatio11s No. 
885-F, T. dated 1.5.1955 and No.1915 F. T. dated 10.5.196J-Who/e black and 
white pepper powde,--Wl!ole hmneric and tunneric powde1-SIJ/es Tax-l!'I-
ibility of-Held whole black and white pepper and pepper.powder are the same C 
['•ads-Because of description of whole t1mneric and tunneiic powder i11 both 
notifications in same manner as black and white pepper, whole hmneric and 
tunneTic poYider n1ust also be treated as sanze goods. 
Words and Phrases-'that is to say'-Occum·ng in clauses (2) and (3) 
of Notificatio11 No. 885-F. T. dated 10.5. 1955 issued under s.25 of the West D 
Bengal Sales Tax Act, 195.f-lnterpretatio11 of 
By notification 11/o. 885-F.T. dated May 1,1955 issued under s.25 of 
the West Rengal Sales Tax Act,1954, turmeric and pepper were brought 
under the purview of the Act. By another notification No. 1915-F:T. dated E 
May 10,1963 isued under s.4 of the Act, the rates of tax on these com-
modities were prescribed. Under the Act, the tax was a single point tax 
leviable at the first point of sale. The revenue imposed tax on the sale of 
pepper powder and turmeric powder. The appellant, who purchased 
whole black pepper and whole turmeric and converted them into pepper 
powder and turmeric powder for sale, contended that pepper and pepper 
powder and similarly turmeric and turmeric powder, being one and the 
same thing, were not exigible to tax since whole pepper and whole turmeric 
had suffered tax when they were sord to him. The Revenue rejected the 
claim holding that pepper and pepper powder and similarly turmeric and 
turmeric powder were two different goods. The West Bengal Taxation G 
Tribunal upheld the view of the Revenue. Theappellantfiled the appeal by 
special leave. 
Allowing the appeal. this Court 
HELD: 1.1 Whole black and white pepper and pepper powder are the H 
123 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 2S.C.R. 
A same goods, whether applying the functional test or the test of com· 
mon/commerdal parlance. The analogy of paddy and rice or of wheat and 
wheat powder is not apt. Nobody consumes paddy as it. Similarly, no one 
eats whole wheat. They are consumed after milling them into rice or Dour, 
as the case may be. But so far as the pep)i>fr is concerned, it is used equally 
B in whole as well as powder form. Therefore, the entry in Notification No. 
885· T.F. dated 1.5.1955 speaks of 'Black and white pepper ·whole, broken, 
ground or powdered or of any other form or description whatsoever'. 
Further, the reference of black and white pepper in Notification No. 1915, 
'as specified in Notification No. 885' means black and white pepper, 
whether whole, powdered, broken or in any other form. [128-B-D) 
c 
1.2 The position of turmeric and turmeric powder is not identical, 
applying the functional test. But inasm~ch as turmeric is also described 
in Notification No. 885 in the same man,1er as black and,white pepper and 
also because Notification No. 1915 refo1 ·s to it with reference to the said 
D earlier Notification, turmeric and t,urmeric powder must also be treated 
as same, goods. [128-E) 
Rajastlta11 Flour Mills Associatio11 v. State of Rajastha11, [1993) 3 
SCALE 600, held inapplicable. 
E 
Alladi Venkateshwar/11 v. State of A11dhra Pradesh, 41 S.T.C. 394; 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v, D.S.Bist & Ors., [1980) 1 S.C.R. 
593, Ganesh Trading Compa11y, Kamal v. State of Haryana, 32 S.T.C. 623 
and State of Kamataka v. Raghuram Shetty, 47 S.T.C. 369, referred to. 
F 
2. In items (2) and (3) of Notification No. 885-F.T., the words 'that 
G 
is to say' seem to refer to the botanical e1,presslon followhog the said words, 
and they cannot, by any stretch of ima1;ination, be taken to indicate that 
broken, powdered or any other form of pepper are different goods from 
pepper. [129-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICrION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1211-13 
of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order elated 15.5.91 of the West Bengal 
Taxation Tribunal, Calcutta, in Case No. R.N. 207(T), 608(T),609(T) of 
H 1988. 
K.C.D. PVT. LID. v. COMMR. TAX OFFICER [JEEV AN REDDY,J.] 125 
·~ 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Gopal Chakravarthi, K.P. Ghosh and Ms. Kum A 
Kum Sen for the Appellant. 
Santosh Hegde, Dilip Singh and J .R. Das for M/s. Sinha and Das for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.