RAJASTHAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 01-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJASTHAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION 
AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 14(i)(iii)-£xpression 'WheatL-
Whether includes Flour, Maida and Suji and therefore, declared goods-Com-
C mercially are they different goods. 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Sections 14 and 15 read with Constitution 
of India Art. 286-Restrictions on levying tax-lts application-Words "That 
is to say''-Meaning of 
D 
Constitution of India-VI/th Schedul~Entry 92-A of List I and Entry 
54 of List II and Article 286--Power of the State Legislatures to levy taxes on 
sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers. 
Under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act as amendedin the year 
1976, certain goods of special importance were treated as "declared goods". 
E 
The Section imposes certain restrictions upon the States in the matter of 
imposition of tax on sale or purchase of"declared goods". Section 14(i) (iii) 
of the Act declares "wheat" as goods of special importance in interstate 
trade or commerce and hence "declared goods". 
F 
G 
In the Writ Petitions filed by the dealers in the High Courts, it was 
contended that the expression 'Wheat" in Section 14(i) (iii) of the Act 
included Flour, Maida and Suji and were, therefore, 'declared' goods. The 
High Courts of Karnataka and Patna upheld the contention of the dealers, 
whereas the same was rejected by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and 
Rajas than. 
Against the High Court Judgments both the States as well as the 
dealers filed their appeals by special leave in this Courts. 
The contention of the dealers was that even after being milled Flour, 
Maida and Suji remained and continued to be wheat but in different forms 
H Sections 14 and 15 were amended in 1976, to save cereals which included 
72 
RATASTIIAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSN. ·v. STATE 
73 
wheat, from multiple taxation, since both the sections 14 and 15 were A 
beneficial in nature to provide relief to common man, they must be con-
strued liberally, and treating flour, maida and suji as different com-
modities and taxing them would defeat the purpose for which clause (i) was 
introduced in section 14. 
The States of Karnataka, Bihar, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh B 
contended that Section 14(i) (iii) speaks of wheat in primary form and not 
flour, maida and suji which were products derived therefrom and were 
commercially different goods understood as such in common parlance, if 
wheat included flour derived from it, then paddy should include rice be-
cause just as wheat was obtained by milling wheat, rice was obtained by C 
milling paddy, yet rice was mentioned as a seperate commodity in sub-
clause (ii) of clause (i), and this clause would become superflous if the 
dealer's contention had to be accepted. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Flour, Maida and Suji derived from wheat are not 'Wheat" 
within the meaning ofsection 14(i) (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Flour, 
Maida and Suji are not "declared goods" as they are different and distinct 
goods from wheat. [93-D] 
D 
2. Where certain goods are consumed to bring into existence different E 
goods different in commercial and common parlance both of them must be 
treated as different goods. Hence there is no warrant for reading flour, 
maida and suji into the expression "wheat" in Section 14(i)(iii). (82-C-D] 
Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana, 32 S.T.C 623, Babu Ram 
Jagdish Chemical Co. v. State of Punjab, 44, S.T.C. 159 and State of Kar-
nataka v. Raghurama Shetty, 47 S.T.C. 369, relied on 
F 
3. When wheat is consumed for producing Flour, Maida or Suji the 
commodities so obtained are different commodities from wheat. Wheat 
loses its identity. It gets cosumed and in its place new goods/commodities G 
emerge. 
The new goods so emerging have higher utility than the com-
modity consumed. They are different goods commercially speaking. 
(86-E-F] 
4. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act read with clause (3) of Article 286 of 
the Constitution constitute restrictions upon the power of the State Legis- H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
lature to levy tax upon the sale of goods. Such restrictions ought to be 
construed strictly and not liberally. (80-F] 
5. The use of the words "that is to say" occurring in clause (i) of 
section 14 clearly indicates the intention of the Parliament to limit the 
restriction to those goods alone as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.