AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, C.J.—Two points are urged: (1) after the recent amendment of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, the sale of jaggery attracts tax u/s 18(1), and, for this reason, the tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act cannot be levied, and (2) jaggery is some kind of an agricultural produce exempt from tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
In our view, neither of the contentions is correct. Reliance is placed on the opening words, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959", which occur in Section 18(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, for the contention that these words have the effect of impliedly overruling the charge under the General Sales Tax Act. We are clearly of the view that they have no such effect. "Notwithstanding" in Section 18(1) only signifies that in spite of the fact that a tax may be payable on the sale of jaggery under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, a cess may also be levied u/s 18(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959. It is permissible, and this court has held so, that on the same taxable event, there may be more than one charge, but for different purposes. That is the case here.
Nor are we able to see any substance in the other point that jaggery is an agricultural produce. Section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, defines "turnover" so as to exclude proceeds of sale of agricultural or horticultural produce. But, obviously, jaggery by no means can be regarded as an agricultural produce. It is the result of a process, both physical and mechanical, and, without such processing jaggery cannot be produced. It is not a case of mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying as mentioned in explanation (1) to Clause (r) of Section 2.
The petition is dismissed.