STATE OF ORISSA versus M/S. DINABANDHU SAHU & SONS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 30-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
966 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
M/S. DINABANDHU SAHU & SONS 
March 30, 1976 
[H. R. Kl!ANNA AND P. K. GoSWAMI, JJ.] 
Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956), s. 14(vi)-Notification by conr;erned 
dep11rt1nent of Government of India including some seeds in 'oil seeds'-How 
far relevant in determining category of seeds. 
Under s. 14(vi), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. among goods declared to be 
of special importance in inter-State trade and commerce are menfio1J-ed oiJ_-
seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oils used for human consump-
tion, or in industry, etc., or volatile oils used chiefly in medicines etc. 
The 
Assistant Commissioner under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal, and the 
High Court on reference, held that jeera, dhania, panmohuri, methi and postak 
are oil-seeds within the meaning of s. 14(vi) and liable to a lesser rate of tax. 
The High Court relied on ordinary and technical dictionaries and a notification -1 
of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of 
India, dated January 3, 1959 for its conclusion. 
Jn appeal to this Court under Art. 136, it was contended by the State, 
relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kajjam Ramchandraiah Gari Anantaiah 
(1961) 12 STC 795, that the Court should adopt the meaning given to these 
articles in common parlance by people who use them, that so understood they 
are spices and not oil-seeds, and that though they yield non-volatile oil to a 
certain extent, there is no evidence that they fall within the description in 
s. 14(vi). 
Dismissing the -appeal, 
HELD : It cannot be said that the Tribunal was not right, and so it is not 
a fit case for interference under Art. 136, When the High Court held that the 
Tribunal was right. 
[970C-O, G] 
' 
(a) Item 3, Schedule IV, A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, is identical 
with s. 14(vi) of the Central Act. In Kaijam Ramachandriah's case, the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court held that dhania did not come within the definition. of 
oil-seeds relying on some letters from (i) Director, National Chemical_ Labora-
tory, Poona, and (ii) Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore. 
r96SF] 
(b) The High Court was right iri the present case in holdiilg that tlie notifi-
cation of the Government of India had no statutory force and was- not binding 
on the Sales Tax Officer, but it cannot be said that the High Court and "I'ribunal 
were not right in preferring the opinion therein as good evidence for their 
conclusion to the opinions in the letters relied upon by the Andhra Pradesh 
IIigh Court. The Ministry of Finance, which issued the notification, is inti-• 
mately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purpose of 
implementation of the provisions of the Central Act. but is also fahiiliar with 
the nature and quality of the commodities and also their use from time to 
time. 
[9700-F] 
(c) Further, the letters of the Director, National Chemical Laboratory and 
the Central Food Technological Research Institute, do not indicate that the 
opinions expressed therein were firm or even final or whether an the uses men
4 
tioned in the definition of oil-seeds were brought to their notice. 
[970FJ 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v . . Bakhat Rai and 
Co. (1966) 18 Sales Tax Cases 285 and The Deputy Commissioner -of Agricul
4 
rural Jncome-tai and Sales Tax, Kozldkode v. S'reedharCI Shenoy ( 1973) 32 Sales 
Tax Cases 181, referred to. 
? 
( 
ORISSA v. D!NABANDHU SAHU & SONS (Goswami, J.) 
967 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 917. to 916 of 
A 
1971. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 2nd July 1969 of the Orissa High Court in Special Jurisdiction 
Cases Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 ·of 1964. 
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey : for Appellants (In CAs. 
fl. 
912-13/71) 
R. N. Sachthey; for Appellant in CAs. 914-16/71. 
Gohind Das, amicus curiae for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J .-Five quarters of assessment of sales tax are invol-
ved in these fi~e appeals, by special leave, the period commencing 
.._ from January 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. 
11us judgment will 
I 
govern all these appeals involving a common question. 
The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, included in the turn-
over of the respondent the sale price of jeera, dhania (coriander) , 
panmohuri, methi, postak and pipall and levied 5 per cent sales tax 
under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (briefly the State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.