Case: Commnr., Sales Tax, U.P Vs. S/S. Bharat Bone Mill

The question as to whether crushed bone-meal would come within the definition of the term "fertilizer" must be considered having regard to some notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time. By a notification dated 16.07.1956, ‘Fertilizers other than ‘Chemical Fertilizers were exempted from payment of sales tax by the State in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. However, by reason of a notification dated 10.3.1970, ‘Chemical Fertilizers we also brought within the purview of exemption from payment of sales tax. By a notification dated 31.03.1976 a taxing entry from payment of sales tax. By a notification dated 31.02.1976 a taxing entry was introduced in the Schedule appended to the notification dated 15.11.1971 in terms whereof sale of ‘bone to consumer was exigible to sales tax of 6 per cent. Yet, in terms of 7.09.1981, the Schedule appended to the said Act was amended; the relevant entries being 8 and 10 read asNo.DescriptionPoint ofRate ofof goodstaxTax8.BonesSale to6%consumer10.ChemicalM oris in the aforementioned context, the question as to whether `crushed bone would answer the description of `fertilizer or not is required to be considered. We may notice that the High Court in view of some decisions rendered by the Tribunal as also a decision of the learned Single Judge of the M.P. High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax. Madhya Pradesh vs. Sagar Bone Mills, Sagar : No. 1 [18 STC 338] opined that `crushed bone would come within the purview of `fertilizer. Reference was also made to a decision of a learned Single Judge of the said Court in CST vs. Crusher and Fertilizer Company [1985 UPTC 905].

Court's reasoning:
is well-known that the question as to whether a commodity would be exigible to sales tax or not must be considered having regard to its identity in common law parlance. If, applying the said test, it is to be borne in mind that if one commodity is not ordinarily known as another commodity; normally, the provisions of taxing statute in respect of former commodity which comes within the purview of the taxing statute would be allowed to operate. In any event, such a question must be determined having regard to the expert opinion in the field. We have noticed hereinabove the difference between ‘bone meal and `crushed bone. Different utilities of the said items has also been noticed by the Allahabad High Court itself. The High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal did not have the advantage of opinion of the expert to the effect as to whether crushed bones can be used only for the purpose of fertilizer or whether crushed bones are sold to the farmers for use thereof only as fertilizer.