Assessee claimed deduction of groundnut purchase price from sales turnover including hydrogenated oil (Vanaspati) sales. Supreme Court held hydrogenated oil remains groundnut oil despite processing, entitling assessee to Rule 18(2) deduction; but freight charges not separately charged were not deductible under Rule 5(1)(g).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1961)
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
,
I, I
I . I
M/S. TUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD.
October 18.
v.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFI<'ICER, KURNOOL. (S. K. DAs, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. C. DAs Gul'TA, J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAB, JJ.) Sales Tax__;.Hydrogenated groundnut oil (Vanasf>ati), if groundnut oil-Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assess- ment) Rules, Ig39, rr. 4, 5 and I8.
The appellant purchased groundnuts out of which it manufactured gro1mdnut oil ; it also refined the oil and hydrogenated it converting it into Vanaspati. It sold the oil in all the three states. Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the Turnover and Assessment Rules, for determining the taxable turnover the appellant was entitled to deduct the purchase price of the groundnuts from the proceeds of the sale of all groundnut oil. The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to the deduction in respect of the sales of unrefined and refined groundnut oil but not in respect of the sales of hydrogenated oil on the ground that Vanaspatt was not "groundnut oil " but a product of groundnut oil.
Held, .that the appellant was entitled to the deduction in respect of the sales of hydrogenated groundnut oil also. The hydrogenated groundnut oil continued to be "groundnut oil" notwithstanding the processing which was merely for the purpose of rendering the oil more stable. To be groundnut oil two conditions had to be satisfied-it must be from groundnut and it must be "oil ". The hydrogenated oil was from groundnut and in its essential nature it remained an oil. It continued to be used for the same purposes as groundnut oil which had not undergone the process. A liquid state was not an essential characteristic of a vegetable oil ; the mere fact that hydrogenation made it semisolid did not alter its character as an oil.
•
CIVIL APPELLATE JUBISDIOTION: Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 11, 1955, of the Andhra. Pradesh High Court in T. R. C. No. 120 of 1953 a.rising out of the judgment and order dated December 29, 1952, of the Sa.Jes Tax Tribunal, Madras, in Tribunal A ppea.l No. 857 of 1951.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, M. Ranganatha Sastri and
M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.
D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 15
Andhra Pradesh, T. V. R. Tatachari, D. Venkatappayya Sastri and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. .
I960
M/s. Tungabhadra
AYYANGAR J.-This appeal on a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Andhr& Pradesh · raises for consideration principally the question whether hardened or hydrogena.ted groundnut oil (commonly called Vanaspati) is " groundnut oil " within the meaning of Rule 18(2) of the Madras Genera.I Sales-Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939.
The Commercial Ta" Officer, K"rnool
A.yyanga• J.
Tunga.bha.dra Industries Ltd.-the appellant in this appeal-has a. factory of considerable size at Kurnool in the State of Andhra. Pradesh. The company purchases groundnuts and groundnut kernels within the State and manufactures groundnut oil and also refined oil as well a.s hydrogenated oil all of which it sells. The appeal is concerned with the assessment to sales. tax of this company for the year 1949-50.
Section 3 of the Madras General Sales-Tax Act, 1939, enacts:
"3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,-
(a.) every dealer shall pay for ea.ch year a tax on his total turnover for such year ; and
(b) the tax shall be calculated at the rate of three pies for every rupee in such turnover.
(2) ................................................................ .
(3) ••..•..•...•...•..•.•••••..•••....•••••...•..•...••...•.••..••.
(4) For the purposes of this section and the other provisions of this Act, turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed :
Provided that no such rules shall come into force unless they are approved by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly.
(5) The taxes under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be assessed, levied and collected in such manner and in such instalments, if any, as may be prescribed:
Provided that-
(i) in respect of the same transaction of sale, the buyer or the seller, but not both, as determined by such rules as may be prescribed, shall be taxed ;
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961)
z96o (ii) where a dealer has been taxed in respect of M T- bh d the purchase of any goods in accorda.nce with the jdus::t= L;/" rules referred to in clause (i) of this proviso, he shall v. · not be taxed again in respect of any sale of such goods The Commmial effected by him."
Tax Offi"'· Rules were made by virtue inter alia of these provi- Kurnool sions entitled " The Madras General Sales-Tax Ayyangar 1 . Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939 ". Of these, those relevant to the present context are Rules 4 & 5. Rule 4 reads :
"4. (l) Save as provided in sub-rule (2) the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which goods are sold by the dealer.
(2) In the case of the undermentioned goods the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the amount for which the goods are bought by the dealer(a) groundnut-".
The result of the combined operation of s. 4(1)&(2) in the case of those who purchased groundnut and having crushed them sold the oil obtained was, that they had to pay tax on both their purchases of groundnut and their sales of oil produced therefrom. This was considered by the rule making authority to be an unfair burden and relief was accordingly provided by Rules 5 and 18 of the same rules, the material portions of which ran :
"5. (1) The tax or taxes under section 3 ...... shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determining the net turnover the amounts specified in clauses (a) to (I) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer.
Clause (k) of this rule reads :
(k) in the case of a registered manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake, the amount which he is entitled to deduct from his gross turnover under rule 18 subject to the conditions specified in that rule."
(This rule was amended by a notification dated November 9, 1951, by the addition of the ·words "(other than refined groundnut oil)" after the word
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 17
~ "groundnut oil", but this modification of the rule is I960 not relevant to the present case which is concerned Mi T-bh d with the assessment of a period anterior to the modifiIdus:;.!: Ld.ra L~d.ra cation). v.
Idus:;.!: Ld.ra L~d.ra v. The Commercial Ta:r Officer, Kurnool
· Ru l e 18 r.eferred to here reads, to quote on y t e l h material words:
" 18. (1) Any dealer who manufactures groundnut oil and cake from groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him may, on application to the assessing authol'tty havingjurisdiotion over the area in which he carries on his business, be registered as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake.
Ayyangar J.
(2) Every such registered manufacturer of groundnut oil will be entitled to a deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel, purchased by him and converted into oil and cake if he has paid the tax to the State on such purchases :
Provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his net turnover :
Provided. further that the amount of the turnover in respect of which deduction is allowed shall not exceed the amount of the turnover attributable to the groundnut and/or kernel used in the manufacture of oil and included in the net turnover.
Explana.tion.-For the purpose .of this sub-rule-(a.) 143 lb. of groundnut shall be taken to be equivalent to 100 lb. of kernel;
(b) 143 lb. of groundnut or 100 lb. of kernel when converted into oil will normally be taken to yield 40 lb. of oil; and
(c) one candy of oil shall be ta.ken to be equivalent to 500 lb. of oil."
Then follow other provisions not relevant for the purposes of the present appeal.
The appellant was registered as a me.nufa.oturer of groundnut oil under r. 18(1). That the appellant purchased the groundnuts, the value of which was claimed as a deduction in the turnover withi1;1 the State and . pa.id tax on such purchase to the State wa.s not in f dispute. Nor was there any controversy that the sale. 3
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]
I960 price of the oil expressed out of and sold either as raw ,. - groundnut oil, refined oil or hydrogenated oil was .ll/s. TttnJ;abhadra. l d . h f Iudustdei Ltd. me u ed m t e turnover. o the appellant. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, who Thi Commmial completed the assessment of the appellant accepted Ta.v Officer. the figures of purchases and sales submitted by it, and Kimioel dealing with the claim for the deduction of the pur- Ayyaugwr J. chase price of the groundnuts from the proceeds of th• sale of .. n oil by the company-raw, refined and hydrogenated-granted a deduction in respect of the purchase price of the groundnuts attributable to the 11nrefi11ed oil sold by the appellant, but held that t,he appellant was not entitled to the deduction claimed in , respect of the refined and hydrogenated oil for the reason that it was only unrefined or unprocessed groundnut oil that w connoted by the expression 'groundnut oil' in rule 5(l)(k) read with rule 18(1) and (2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. This order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was affirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal and the appellant filed a further appeal to ~he Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal. The second appellate authority upheld the contention of the appellant in regard to ~ the sale of refined oil but rejected it in so far as it related to the sales of hydrogenated oil. The matter was thereafter brought up before the High Court of Andhra P1·adesh by a Tax Revision Case filed under s. 13(b)(l) of the Act and the learned Judges upheld the view of the Tribunal and disallowed the claim of the appellant to the deduction claimed in regard to the sales turnover of hydrogenated oil. They granted the certificate under Art. 133 which has enabled , the appellant to file a.n appeal to this Court. ' The claim of the appellant to the deduction under r. 18(2) on the so.Jes of refined groundnut oil is no longer in dispute. The ground upon which both the Tribunal as well as the High Court decided against the allowance of the deduction in respect of the sales of hydrogena.ted oil, while upholding the appellants' case as regards refined oil ma.y be briefly stated thus : The exemption or deduction from the sale-turnover • ' under r. 18(2), is on its terms applicable only to the sale of the oil in the form in which it is when extracted
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
19
. /
[1961)
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
| r96o - _M}"d_Tngab1:ra •us~-" · TheCommercial TaxOfficer, Kurnool Ayyangarf. |
theyheldthatVanaspatior hydrogenated oil wasnot,. " groundnut oil "buta product of groundnut oil, manufactured outofgroundnut oilandthereforenot entitled tothebenefitofthe deduction under r. 18(2). Thearguments of Mr.VisvanathaSa,stri forthe appellants were brieflytwo:(1)The reasons behind the rules 5(k)&18(2) which were designed to afford relief againstwhatwouldamountpractically to double taxation of the same assessee both whenhe purchased and when he soldthegoods, requiredthat the appellants' claim should be allowed.(2)Hydro- genated groundnut oil was no less groundnut oilthan either refined or even unrefined oil.Thefactthat the qualityofthe oilhadbeen improved doesnot negative its continuing to be oilandthe materials before the departmental authoritiesandthe Court establishedthatitcontinued to be oilandwas noth- ing more.. Theargument based on the reasonofthe rule can- notcarry the appellant far, since in the present case itisa.nexemption fromtaxwhich he invokesandof which he seeks the benefit.Ifthe wordsoftherule a.reinsufficient to cover the case, the reason behind • the rule cannot be availedofto obtain the relief.Nor coulditbe said to be a case of doubletaxationofthe same goodsatthepurchaseandsale points which is forbiddenbys.3(5)ofthe Act.Iftheview adopted bythelearned Judgesofthe High Courtthathydro- genated groundnut oil is not"groundnutoil "buta productofgroundnut oil were correct, learned Coun- selcannoturgethathe would still be entitledtothe deduction for which provision is made in r.18(2). Consequentlyitisthesecondofthesubmissions ' alone which really requirestobe examined.Indoing soitwould be convenienttoconsiderthereasoning onthebasis of w hioh the viewthathydrogenated oil wasnot"groundnutoil " was sought to be sustained before us. Thelearned Advocate-Genera.I ofAndhraPradesh who appeared fortherespondent-CommercialTax Officer sought tosupportthe decisionoftheHigh, Courtby two linesofreasoning. The first wasthat |
|---|
•
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
21
the exemption applied only to the sale of the oil as it r960 ) emerged from the presser and that any processing of - · th e .01 'l ' l m? .u d' mg re ning, m fi • · o~ d er to remove even · Mfs. Ind1<stries Ltd. TungabhadrlJ Ind1<stries Ltd. TungabhadrlJ TungabhadrlJ the impurities and free fatty amds, took it out of the v. category of "groundnut oil " as used in the r,ule. In Ths Commercial support of this submission he referred us to the Table Tax Officer, of Conversion of groundnuts and kernel into oil set I<urnool out in the Explanation to r. 18(2), extracted earlier, and submitted that the 40 lb. of oil for every 100 lb. Ayyangar J. of kernel was based on the yield of raw groundnut oil and that this was an indication that nothing other than raw groundnut oil was intended to be covered by the expression "groundnut oil " in the rule .
it r960 of - · Mfs. Ind1<stries Ltd. TungabhadrlJ Ind1<stries Ltd. TungabhadrlJ TungabhadrlJ the v. In Ths Commercial Tax Officer, I<urnool
We must however point out that this last submission has no factual basis to support it; It is not known whether the proportion of 40 lb. of oil for every 100 lb. of kernel represents the average weight of oil extractable from different varieties of groundnut kernels or is the average of the different types of oils which may be produced out of different varieties of kernels. In the absence of any definite data in this regard it is impossible to accept the argument that the Table of Conversion justifies any particular construction of what was meant by "groundnut oil" in the ma.in pa.rt.of the rule.
.,.
·--!
Nor is the learned Ad vocate-Genera.l well•founded in his submission that the processing of the oil in order to render it more acceptable to the customer by improving its quality would render the oil a. commodity other than " groundnut oil " within the meaning of the rule. For instance, if the oil as extracted were kept still in a vessel for a. period of time, the sediment normally present in the oil would settle at the bottom leaving a clear liquid to be drawn out. Th.e learned Advocate-Genera.I cannot go so far a.s to say, that if this physical process was gone through, the oil that was decanted from the sediment which it contained when it issues out of the expresser, ceased to be " groundnut oil" for the purposes of the rule. If the removal of impurities by a process of sedimentation does not render groundnut oil a.ny the less so, it follows that even the process of refining, by the
_.,,
!
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]
' -
196o application of chemical methods for removing impuri-ties in the oil, would not detract from the resulting Mj;;a,1:.:;:;;b;:.'• oil being "grouo.dnut oil " for the purpose of the rule. v. It may be ment10ned that processes have been dis. The Commercial covered by which even on extraction from the oil Ta• Offim, mill, the oil issues without any trace of free fatty K"rnnol acids. It could hardly be contended that if such processes were adopted what comes out of the expresser is Ayyatigar ]. not groundnut oil. The submission of the learned Advocate-General based on a contention that the Tribunal and the learned Judges of the High Court erred in holding that even refined groundnut oil was "groundnut oil" for the purpose of the rule, must be rejected.
The next question is whether if beyond the process of refinement of the oil, the oil is hardened, again by the use of chemical processes it is rendered any the less groundnut oil". In regard to this, the learned Advocate-General first laid stress on the fact that while normally oil was a viscous liquid, the hydrogenated oil was semi-solid and that this change in its physical state was itself indicative of a substantial modification of the identity of the substance. We are unable to accept this argument. No doubt, several oils are normally viscous fluids, but they do harden and assume semi-solid condition on the lowering of the temperature. Though groundnut oil is, at normal temperature, a viscous liquid, it assumes a semi-solid condition if kept for a long enough time in a refrigerator. It is therefore not correct to say that a liquid state is an essential characteristic of a vegetable oil and that if the oil is not liquid, it ceases to be oil. Mowrah oil and Dhup oil are instances where vegetable oils assume a semi-solid state even at normal temperatures. Neither these, nor cocoanut oil which hardens naturally on even a slight fall in temperature, could be denied the name of oils because of their not being liquid. Other fats like ghee are instances where the physical state does not determine the identity of the commodity.
The next submission of the learned Advocate-General was that in the course of hydrogenation the oil
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
· 23
; -4 •
absorbed two atoms of hydrogen and that there was r96o stance. This however an inter-molecular change in i~ not decisive of the content of t~e the matter. subJI 1}~au:i:i:: T- bl d {~d:a The question that has li't1ll to be answered 1s whether v. hydrogenated oil continues even after the change to The Commercial be" groundnut oil". If it is, it would be entitled to Tax Officer, the benefit of the deduction from the turnover, or to Kurnool Put it slightly differently,the benefit of the deduction Ayyangar ]. from the turnover cannot be denied, unless the hydrogenated groundnut oil has ceased to be " groundnut oil". To be groundnut oil, two conditions have to be satisfied. The oil in question must be from groundnut and secondly the commodity must be "oil". That the hydrogenated oil sold by the appellants was out of groundnut not bei"ng in dispute, the only point is whether it continues to be oil even after hydrogenation. Oil is a chemical compound of glycerine with fa.tty acids or rather a glyceride of a mixture of fatty acids-principally oleic, linoleic, stearic and palmitic, the proportion of the particular fat varying in the case of the oil from different oil-seeds and it remains a glyceride of fatty acids even after the hardening process, though the relative proportion of the different types of fatty acids undergoes a slight change. In its essential nature therefore no change has occurred and it remains an oil-a glyceride of fatty acids-that it was when it issued out of the press.
In our opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court laid an undue emphasis on the addition by way of the absorption of the hydrogen atoms in the process of hardt:ning and on the consequent inter-molecular changes in the oil. The addition of the hydrogen atoms was effected in order to saturate a portion of the oleig and linoleic constituents of the oil and render the oil more stable thus improving its quality and utility. But neither mere absorption of other matter, nor inter-molecular changes necessarily affect the identity of a substance as ordinarily understood. Thus for instance there are absorptions of matter and inter-molecular changes which deteriorate the quality or utility of the oil and it might be interesting to see if such additions and alterations could be taken to
~ ' '
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
i96o render it any the less" oil". Groundnut oil when it Ml,T-bh4_issues out of the expresser normally contains a large 1,;_ '· 4ustries unga aLid. rapropor ion o t" funsa turate d "is.tty a.01 "ds-o 1 ·e10a.n d l" mov. leic-wh,ich with other fa.tty acids which a.re sa.tura.t- Th• Commeroiol ed are in combination with glycerine to form the gly- T•" Officer; ceride which is oil. The unsaturated fa.tty acids are Kurnool unstable, i. e., they are subject to oxidative changes. Ayyang!'• J. When raw oil is exposed to a.ir pa.rtfoularly if humid and wa.rm, i.e., in a climate such a.s obtains in Madras, oxygen from the atmosphere is gradually absorbed by the unsaturated acid to form an unstable peroxide (in other words the change involves the addition of two atoms of oxygen) which in its turn decomposes breaking up into aldehydes. It is this oxida.tive change a.nd pa.rticula.rly the conversion into aldehydes that is believed to be responsible for the sharp unpleasant odour, and the characteristic taste of rancid oil. If nothing were done to retard the process the rancidity p:ia.y increase to such e:xtent as to render it unfit for human consumption. The change here is both additive and inter-molecular, but yet it could hardly be said that rancid groundnut oil is not groundnut oil. It would undoubtedly be very bad groundnut,oil but stiUit would be groundnut oil and if so it does not seem to accord with logic tha.t when the quality of the oil is improved in that its resistance to the na.tura.l processes of deterioration' through oxidation is increased, it should be held not to be oil. Both the Tribunal a.swell as the High Court ha.ve pointed out that except for its keeping quality without rancidity and ease of pa.eking a.nd transport without lea.ka.ge, hydrogenated oil serves the sa.me purpose a.s a. cooking medium a.nd has identical food value as refined groundnut oil. There is no use to which the groundnut oil ca.n be put for which the hydrogenated oil could not be used, nor is there a.ny use to which the hydrogenated oil could be put for which the raw oil could not be used. Similarly we consider that hydrogenated oil still continues to be " groundnut oil " notwithstanding the processing which is merely for the purpose of rendering the oil more stable thus improving its keeping qualities for
'
•
•
•
25
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
··' '
. .;
those who desire to consume groundnut oil. In our r960 -- opinion, the assessee-compa.ny was entitled to the b ene fi t o t e e uct1on o t e pure ase f h d d . f h h pnce . o t e f h 1111 1,,dustries s. Tungabhadra Ltd kernel-or groundnut, under r. 18(2), which went into v. · the manufacture of the hydrogenated groundnut oil The Commercial from the sale turnover of such oil. Tax Officer,
Tax Officer, Kurnool Ayyangar J. ·
One other point which is involved in the appeal relates to the claim of the appellant to a deduction ia respect of the freight-charges included in the price of the commodity. Under r. 5(l)(g) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, in determining the net turnover of a dealer he is entitled to have deducted from bis gross turnover " all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold:
(i) freight;
( 11 ") .................. " .
The. appellant claimed exemption on a sum of Rs. 3,88,377 -13-3 on the ground that it represented the freight in respect of the goods sold by the appel. lant asserting that they had been charged for separately. The assessing-officer rejected the claim and this rejection was upheld by th!;l departmental authorities and by the High Court in Revision. It would be seen that in order to claim the benefit of this exemption the freight should (1) have been specified and charged for by the dealer separately, and-fii) the same should not have been included 'in the price of the goods sold. The learned Judges of the High Court held that neither of these conditions was satisfied by the bills produced by the appellant. We consid·er, the decision of the High Court on this point was correct. In the specimen bill which the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed before us, after setting out the quantity sold by weight (23,760 lb.) the price is specified as 15 annas 9 pies per lb. and the total amount of the price is determined at Rs. 23,388-12-0. From this the railway freight of Rs. 1,439-12-0 is deducted and the balance is shown a.s the sum on which sales-tax has been computed. 4
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]
1960 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. October :i8.
VISHNU RAMCHANDRA
(M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Externment-Order, if can relate to antecedents of convicted offenders-Statute, if prospective or retrospective-Bombay Police Act, r95r (n of r95r), ss. SJ(I), r4z-Indian Penal Code, ss. II4, 380, 4rr. · On November 16, 1949, the respondent was convicted under ss. 380 and II4 of the Indian Penal Code. On October 15, 1957• the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, acting under s. 57(1) of -the Bombay Police Act passed an order externing him. from the limits of Greater Bombay. Later he was prosecuted and convicted under . s. 142 of the Bombay Police Act by the Presidency Magistrate for returning to the area from which he was externed. On an application for revision the High Court acquitted the respondent upholding his contention that s. 57 of the Bombay Police Act was not retrospective and was not applicable unless the conyiction on which the externment was based took place after the Act came into force. On appeal by the appellant with the special leave of this Court it was ·
2 issues framed by the court
Whether hydrogenated groundnut oil (Vanaspati) is 'groundnut oil' under Rule 18(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939 for deduction purposes.
Whether freight charges included in the price of goods could be deducted from turnover under Rule 5(1)(g).
6 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.
The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool
S.K. Das
M. Hidayatullah
K.C. Das Gupta
J.C. Shah
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
