LexTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ETC. versus MODERN PROTEINS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' . • - THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ETC. v. MODERN PROTEINS LTD. APRIL 26, 1994 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh .General Sales Tax Act, 1957-Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Entry 29 Schedule-I-Section If-Tax liability on groundnut protein flour-Whether groundnut protein flour is deoiled cake within entry 29 of A B Schedule I-Held, No. C The respondent was a dealer under A.P. General Sales Tax Act. It was dealing ill groundnut, deoiled cake, edible protein flour and other products. For the assessment year 1977-78, the CTO determined the tax liability under the Central Sales Tax Act at 4 percent on groundnut protein flour. On appeal, the Asst!. Commissioner concluded that it is deoiled cake D within entry 29 of the first schedule to the Act, exigible to sales tax at 1 percent at the point of first sale in the State. The Dy. Commissioner revised the Appellate Order and held that the groundnut protein flour was not deoiled cake lllld affirmed the order of the C. T.O. The Tribunal upheld the order of Dy. Commissioner. In revision, the High Court held that the E · groundnut flour is not different and distinct commercial product from the deoiled groundnut cake, and so It is exigible to sales tax u11der entry 29 of Schedule I. In this appeal, the question raised was whether groundnut flour oil is a deoiled cake within entry 29 of Schedule I of the Act. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is true that both deoiled cake and groundnut protein flour contain. common properties but the use and purpose of deoiled cake aud grouudnut protein flour being different an distinct, they cannot be G construed to be the same commodity. The groundnut protein flour is an edible protein food for human consumption and is a different commer- cially marketable entity and tliereby is distinct from deoiled cake for animal feed though obtained in course of same process at different stages. Both emerge into different and distinct commodities commercially known H 731 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A for distinct and different use. The groundnut protein Door did not remain part of the genus i.e. deoiled cake but became a new and different entity in commercial parlance. Accordingly, it is exigible to C.S. T. at the relevant time at 4 per cent. [739-D-E] Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana, (1973) STC 623; State of B Kamataka v. Raghurama Shetty, (1981) 47 STC 369; Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1993) 91 STC 408; Hindustan Aluminum Co1]Joration Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1981) 48 STC 411; Atul Glass Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector or Central &cise, (1986) 63 STC 322; Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Coco Fibres, (1991) 80 STC 249; C State of Tamil Nadu v. P.L. Malhotra, (1976) 37 STC 319 at 324 and G.K Kulkarni v. The State, (1957) 8 STC 294, relied upon. Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, [1976) 2 SCR 98; Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1979] 1 SCR (545); Krishan Chander Dutta v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1994) 1 Scale .711 and Te/engana D Steel Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. & Ors., (1994) 1 Scale 894, distinguished. Modem Candle Works v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam 71 STC p. 362, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 389 of E 1988 and 1620/90. F G From the Judgment and Orders dated 26-6·84 and 23-4-87 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Tax Revision Case No. 40 of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 3477 of 1987. C. Sitaramiah, TVSN Chari, Nikhil Nayyar and Ms. Promila Chaud- hary for the Appellant. H.N. Salve and Mrs. AK. Verma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. A common question of law relating to assessment of two assessment years, namely, 1977-78 and 1982-83 made under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 6 of 1957, for short 'the Act' and the Central Sales Tax Act, for short the 'C.S.T. Act' arises for H decision. The respondent having its factory at Kurnool in AP. is a dealer ' • - ' ~· STATE OF AP. v. MODERN PROTEINS LTD. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.) 733 under the Act, in the groundnut, deoiled cake, edible protein flour and A other products. After decortication and passing through expellars of the groundnut seeds, groundnut oil and groundnut oil cakes are obtained. The groundnut oil cake again is subjected to the process in solvent in, which "food hexane" is sprayed to ob
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.