Case: Martand Dairy &amp; Farm Vs. The Union Of India &amp; Ors

2. The appellant who has arrived in this Court by certificate under Art.133(1) (a) of the Constitution urges before us that he is not liable to sales tax underthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956(LXXIV of 1956) (for short, the Act) sought to be levied from him. Admittedly the appellant is a leading dairy of Benaras and has been sending cream to Calcutta for being converted into butter or ghee. The long journey involved and the considerable quantities despatched necessarily called for protective receptacles during transport. So the cream used to be carefully sent in canisters whose lids were sealed by the seller. The Calcutta buyers received the cream and paid for it on the basis of the ghee/butter recovered from the cream supplied. Although there was some controversy even on the facts, counsel on both sides proceeded on the factual findings recorded by the Judge (revisions) who held that the sales were of cream, that they were inter-State sales and that the exemption extended by Government notification under the Act for cream could not be enjoyed by the assessee as he fell withinthe areaof exclusion contained in the exemption notification. It is appropriate at this stage to reproduce the notification, dated May 10, 1956, under which the exemption is claimed. It reads:"No. ST-3506/X D/- 10-5-56 Exemption has been allowed to :Milk and Milk products such as Chhena, Dahi, Khowa, Butter and Cream but excluding (i) products sold in sealed containers (ii) sweet-meats and (iii) ghee."

Court's reasoning:
Thus in general terms, cream is exempted from payment of Central Sales Tax by virtue of this notification but it carves out an exception to the exemption. If the cream were sold in sealed containers the seller could not come within the exemption notification. We need not go into the technique of sealing adopted in this case since it is common ground now that the cream is put in containers whose lids are properly soldered.The High Court has negatived the plea of the assessee and since we are inclined to agree with its reasoning, we express our grounds only briefly,although we may, in passing, make reference to two decisions cited before us viz., Govindram Ramprasad v Assessing Authority (Sales Tax), 8 STC 407   = (AIR 1958 Madh Pra 16) and Commr, of Sales Tax, U.P. v. G. G. Industries. (1968) 21 STC 63 (SC). Govindram a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is not germane to the question we are dealing with and therefore we need not discussis force in the argument, certainly. But as earlier indicated, judicial adventure in interpretation - particularly in tax matters - is severelythat we are oblivious to the force of this argument but we are influenced by the words whose normal meaning should ordinarily guide interpretation. All that the notification states is that products sold in sealed containers must sail out of the harbour ofthe sale of cream? Yes. Was it, when sold, packaged in containers which were sealed? Yes. Onthese two affirmative answers the exclusion from the exemptioncontainer" merely means a container which is "so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. The expression seal in this context does not involve an affixture of the seal of the seller such as impressing a signet in wax etc., as evidence or guarantee of authenticity. An article may be regarded as put in sealed containers if it is closed securely in any vessel or container by any kind of fastening or covering that must be broken before access can be obtained to what is packed inside. This is the popular, perhaps the literal, meaning of the expressions used in the notification. May be the State thought that sealed containers would be used only by big manufacturers who were able to bear the burden of tax; may be administrative convenience in assessing quantities sold induced this step. It is not for the Court to launch on obscure fiscal astrology but merely to construe what has been expressed in plain words. We should have been happier if the State had furnished the reasons prompting the exclusion from the exemption. An intelligent appreciation of the reason of the rule is an aid to judicial construction but the State has not been as alert on this score as we might havecounsel for the state has expressed his inability to throw light on this aspect or on the reasons for the policy. Had the States counter-affidavit been more illuminating on these questions, it would have performed a service to this Court and to the public and rendered the task of judicial constructionthis view be sound, certainly the Benaras cream dealer is out of the liability zone. We do not examine the impact on taxability had the receptacles been returned by the buyer since it does not arise on the evidence.