AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sreenivasa Rau, C.J.—It is seen from the Second Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, that there is differentiation between hydrogenated oils (item 35) and groundnut oil (item 47) in regard to the rates of tax. It is urged that groundnut oil does not cease to be so merely because it undergoes the process of hydrogenation and is sold as vanaspathi and that this is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1960] 11 STC 827. That was, however, in the context of interpreting rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, in which no distinction was made in the rules themselves between groundnut oil and hydrogenated groundnut oil and it was held that the essential commodity was the same. In the present context, however, the Legislature has made a distinction between the two, since both of them appear in the same Schedule and it cannot be said that the differentiation is illusory, for, it is only after groundnut oil undergoes a certain process or processes that it becomes vanaspathi. It cannot be suggested that the Legislature cannot tax at different rates or in different ways, e.g., in regard to incidence or exemption, commodities which can be reasonably differentiated. The facts that groundnut oil is liable to taxation at a single point makes no difference to the above position.
We do not, therefore, see any reason to admit this petition. It is rejected.
Petition rejected.