LexMARTAND DAIRY & FARM versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'J
~65
MARTAND DAIRY & FARM
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS .
April 23, 1975
[V, .R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J.
B
Ceniral Sales Tax Act 1956-"Sealed Container"-Meaning of.
A notification i"'ued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 allowed ex·
emption to, among others, cream but excluding "products sold in sealod OOB-
tainers". The appellant sends cream to Calcutta in sealed containers. The
"Sales tax authorities held that the sales were of cream, that they "Were inter~
C
.state Sales but that the exemption extended by the notification could not be
.enjoyed by the Msessee since he fell within the area of exclusion contained in
, the exemption notification.
. . The High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellant On . appeal
to this Court it was contended that the containers were used for bulk trano-
mission, that sealing was for 'preventing abuse on the way or to avoid pilferas;e
D
,and that the emphasis should be on the "cream" and- the container bad no
relevance in the context.
Dismissing the appeal,
HEID : It is not for the Court to launch on ob6cure fiscal astroloa but
merely to conStrue what
has been expressed in plain words. _ "Sealed con-
tainer" merely means a container which is "so closed that access to the
:cootents
is
impossible
without
breaking
the
fastening.
The
eXJ>reo- . , E
sion seal in this context does not involve affixture of the seal of -the
ooller such as impressing a signet in wax etc., as evidence or guarantee of
authenticity.
An article may be regarded as put in sealed conta'iners if it is
·Closed
securely in any vessel or container by any kind of fastening or co-
vering that must be broken before access can be obtained to what i• packed
in.side. This is the popular, perhaps the lit.eral, meaning of the expretlllliom:
1l8ed in the notification.
Maybe the State though\ . that .sealed containen
would be used only by big manufacturers who were able to bear the burden . - F
-Of tax ; maybe administrative conveniellce in assessing quantities sold in- ·
<luced this step. [269B·DJ
·
Con1inissioner qf Sales Tax, U.P., v. G. G. Industries; 21 S.T.C. 63 follow-
.ed.
.
Govindram Ramprasad v. Assessing Auhority (Sales Tax) 8 S.T.C. 407,
theld inapplicable.
G
ClvIL APPELLATE JurusosCTION : Civil Appeals Nos .. 1623 and
1624 of 1971.
From the Judgment aitrl Order dated the 13th bctober, 1970 of
the Allahabad High Court in O.M. Writ Petition No. 55 and 56 of
1970.
. S. T. Desai, Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli for the appellant.
'
.
. G. L. Sanghi, .Girish Chandra and E. N. Sachthey for respondoot
~1.
.
.
S. C. Manchanda and 0. P. Rana for Respondents Nos. 2-4.:
H
r--
.,
266
.A
_,._
~ ~;
[1975] SUPP· $.C.R.
rl~~)f
SUPll.EME COURT REPORTS
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
..
')'I''
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Mr. s. T. Desai, counsel for the appellants
. ....,~
in both the appeals, correctly assured us that the facts are not in
B
dispute, although the legal inference bearing on taxability is very
much in controversy.
The appellant, who has atTived in this Court by certificate under
Art. 133(1) (a) of the Constitution, urges before us that he is not
liable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (LXX!V
of 1956) {for short, the Act) sought to be levied from him. Ad-
mittedly the appellant is a leading dairy of Benaras anid has been
· sending cream to Calcutta for being converted into butter or ghee.
C The long journey involved and the considerable quantities despatched
necessarily called for protective receptacles during transport. So the
cream used to be carefully sent in canisters whose lids were sealed
. by the seller. The Calcutta buyers received the cream and paid for
it on the basis of the ghee/butter recovered from the cream supplied.
Although there was some controversy even on the facts, counsel on
D both sides proceeded on the factual findings recorded by the Judge
(Revisions) who held that the sales were of cream, that they were
inter-State sales and that the exemption extended by Government
notification under the Act for cream could not he enjoyed by the
assessee as he fell with.in the area of exclusion contained in the ex-
emption notification. It is appropriate at th.is stage to reproduce the
E notification, dated May 10, 1956, under
which the exemption is
claimed. It reads :
F
"No. ST-3506/X
D/10-5-56
Exemption has been allowed to :
Milk and Milk products Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.