Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.V.S. Natarajan And Sons on 3 April, 1991
Author: A.S. Anand
Bench: A.S. Anand
JUDGMENT Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.
1. The disputed turnovers in these cases relate to the sale transactions of masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder. The assessee prepared these by mixing powders of chillies, coriander, etc. Most of the ingredients which were used in preparing the masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder, etc., had suffered tax earlier. The stand of the assessee for claiming exemption on the sale transactions relating to masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder was that since the ingredients had already suffered tax previously in the State, the mixture of those ingredients could not be subjected to sales tax once again. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after an analysis of the process for preparation of the curry powder, masala powder and rasam powder came to the conclusion that the disputed turnovers were not assessable to tax and allowed the exemption. It was found on facts that the mere mixing of various ingredients did not bring into existence a new commodity. The Tribunal, before whom the assessee had also filed an appeal in regard to certain other matters, and the Revenue had filed an enhancement petition, dismissed the enhancement petition and upheld the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with regard to the disputed turnovers and the allowance of exemption on those turnovers. The Revenue is in revision.
2. On the facts as found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it is obvious that the various ingredients which go into the preparation of the masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder had already suffered tax in this State. Consumers can themselves mix various ingredients while preparing masala, curry or rasam. Therefore, the mere mixing of those ingredients, for the facility of consumers by the assessee cannot be said to give rise to the emergence of a new commodity. The finding that the mixture of the ingredients did not bring into existence a new commodity was returned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after analysis of the process utilised in the preparation of the powders. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that no fault could be found with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
3. In view of what we have noticed above, we do not find any cause to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal in that behalf, and hold that masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder prepared by mixing the ingredients which have already been subjected to sales tax in this State, cannot be subjected to levy of sales tax. The tax revision cases, therefore, fail and are dismissed.
4. Petitions dismissed.