# The Commissioner Sales Tax v. S/S R.N.P.Narain, Farrukhabad

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-03-13
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-commissioner-sales-tax-v-s-s-r-n-p-narain-farrukhabad-40918
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Trade Tax Act-Section 21 (2)-"Oil of
all Kinds"-whether Nagar Motha Oil,
Pipermint Oil and Raunsa oil full under
unclassified item?-held-'Yes' where the
commodity not classified should be
taxed as unclassified.

Held: Para 8

There is no dispute that Nagar Motha Oil,
Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil are the
oils and they are not been classified
elsewhere under any of the Notification.
The entry "Oil of all kinds" is a generic
entry and includes all kinds of oil. Thus,
there appears to be no reason why Nagar
Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil
are not covered under the entry "Oil of
all kinds". It is settled principle of law
that effort should be to classify a
commodity under the entry and if it is
not possible to classify under any of the
entry then only the commodity should be
taxed as an unclassified goods. In the
case of Collector of Central Excise,
Shillong Versus Wood Craft Products Ltd.
reported in 1995 (3) SCC page 454, Apex
Court held that the residuary can be
resorted to only when even a liberal
construction of the specific headings is
not capable of covering the goods in
question. Thus, in the absence of any
specific entry relating to the aforesaid
three items, being essential oils has been
rightly covered under the generic entry
"Oil of all kinds".
Case law discussed:
1987 UPTC-504
1999 UPTC-45
1995 (3) SCC-454

## Text

2 All] The Commissioner Sales Tax V. S/S R.N.P.Narain, Farrukhabad
373
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Sales Tax Revision N0.1704 Of 1993.
And
Sales Tax Revision N0.1705 Of 1993.

The
Commissioner,
Sales
Tax,
U.P.,
Lucknow

 ...Applicant
Versus
S/S
Ram
Narain
Pratap
Narain,
Farrukhabad

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri B.R. Tripathi
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri B.K. Pandey
S.C.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal
Sri Piyush Agrawal
Sri Shubham Agrawal

U.P. Trade Tax Act-Section 21 (2)-"Oil of
all Kinds"-whether Nagar Motha Oil,
Pipermint Oil and Raunsa oil full under
unclassified item?-held-'Yes' where the
commodity not classified should be
taxed as unclassified.

Held: Para 8

There is no dispute that Nagar Motha Oil,
Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil are the
oils and they are not been classified
elsewhere under any of the Notification.
The entry "Oil of all kinds" is a generic
entry and includes all kinds of oil. Thus,
there appears to be no reason why Nagar
Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil
are not covered under the entry "Oil of
all kinds". It is settled principle of law
that effort should be to classify a
commodity under the entry and if it is
not possible to classify under any of the
entry then only the commodity should be
taxed as an unclassified goods. In the
case of Collector of Central Excise,
Shillong Versus Wood Craft Products Ltd.
reported in 1995 (3) SCC page 454, Apex
Court held that the residuary can be
resorted to only when even a liberal
construction of the specific headings is
not capable of covering the goods in
question. Thus, in the absence of any
specific entry relating to the aforesaid
three items, being essential oils has been
rightly covered under the generic entry
"Oil of all kinds".
Case law discussed:
1987 UPTC-504
1999 UPTC-45
1995 (3) SCC-454

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. At the instance of the Revenue,
following two questions have been raised
in the present revisions.

"1.
Whether
the
Sales
Tax
Tribunal was legally justified to hold
that Nagar Motha Oil, Pipermint Oil
and Raunsa Oil fall under the entry of
"Oil of all kinds" despite the fact that
the aforesaid commodities fall under
the category of an unclassified item and
are liable for tax accordingly?

2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Trade
Tax Tribunal was legally justified to
hold that the proceedings under section
21 are barred by limitation in view of
the decision of Hon'ble High Court in
the case of CST Versus Bhagwan
Finance Corporation 1988-27 STL (34)
and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Additional Commissioner
Versus Jyoti Traders 1999 UPTC 45?".

2. For the assessment year 1976-77
under section 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
the limitation for making the assessment
was four years from the end of the
assessment order, which expired on
31.03.1981, therefore, the assessment
should be made by 31st March, 1981. The
notice under section 21 of the Act was
admittedly not issued within four years
i.e. by 31st March, 1981, but was issued
on 6th March, 1982 by U.P. Sales Tax
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983
(U.P. Act no.16 of 1983), proviso to
section 21 (2) of the Act was amended
and the limitation to make assessment has
been extended upto 31st December, 1982.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in
the case of M/S Jaiswal Colour Trading
Company Versus Commissioner of
Sales Tax reported in 1987 UPTC 504,
Tribunal held that the proceeding under
section 21 of the Act was barred by
limitation inasmuch as the amendment
was not applicable because the entire
proceeding
was
closed
when
the
amendment was introduced.

3. Learned counsel for both the
parties agreed that the question No.2 is
squarely covered by the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Additional
Commissioner (Legal) and another
Versus M/S Jyoti Traders and another
reported in 1999 UPTC 45 in which it
has been held that the amendment made,
extending the period of limitation applies
to a case where no proceeding was
pending.

4. Respectfully, following the
decision of the Apex Court, question No.2
is answered in favour of the Department
and against the assessee and the order of
the Tribunal to this extent is set aside.
5. Now coming to question no.1.
Tribunal held that Nagar Motha Oil,
Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil are
covered under the entry " Oil of all
kinds". In this regard, Tribunal held as
follows:

"The second dispute in the present
appeals are as to whether Nagar Motha
Oil, Peppermint Oil, Raunsa Oil being
essential Oils are covered under the entry
of "Oil of all kinds". It has been argued by
the learned counsel for the assessee that
Nagar Motha Oil, Pepperment Oil and
Raunsa Oil are extracted from roots,
herbs and plants and are essential oils,
hence the same is taxable as "Oil of all
kinds". The learned counsel for the
assessee has further submitted that in the
assessee's case, second appeal no.691/83,
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S Ram
Narain Pratap Narain (assessee), for the
assessment year 1975-75, decided on
14.4.1983, the Kanpur Bench of the
Tribunal, after relying on the case of M/S
R. Oil and Chemicals, Bareilly Vs.
Commissioner Sales Tax, 1983 STI (Alld
H.C) page-295, has already held that
Rausa
and
Menthol
Oils
are
manufactured from Rausa and Mentha
grass. They are covered under the general
entry "Oil of all kinds". There is nothing
on record to show that the said decision
of the Tribunal has neither been set aside
or the operation of the order is stayed.
Consequently, we hold that Nagar Motha
Oil, Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil will
fall under the entry of "Oil of all kinds".

6. The question for determination is
as to whether the Nagar Motha Oil,
Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil being
essential oils are covered under the entry
"Oil of all kinds". It has been argued by
the learned counsel for the assessee that
Nagar Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil and
Raunsa Oil are extracted from roots, herbs
2 All] National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Madhulika Lal and others
375
and plants and are essential oils, hence the
same is taxable as Oil of all kinds.
Learned counsel for the assessee has
further submitted that in the assessee's
case in second appeal no.691 of 1983,
Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus M/S
Ram Narain Pratap Narain (assessee) for
the assessment year 1975-76 decided on
14.04.1983, the Kanpur Bench of the
Tribunal, after relying on the case of M/S
R. Oil and Chemicals, Bareilly Versus
Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in
1983 STI (Alld. H.C.) page 295 has held
that Raunsa and Menthol Oils are
manufactured from Rausa and Mentha
grass and they are covered under the
general entry "Oil of all kinds". There is
nothing on record to show that the said
decision of the Tribunal is either set aside
or the operation of the order is stayed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel was
asked to file the copy of the order of the
Tribunal for the assessment year, 1975-76
and to inform whether any revision
against the order of the Tribunal was filed
or not. By supplementary affidavit dated
15th December, 2006, it has been
informed that the file relating to the
assessment year, 1975-76 is not available
and the order dated 14.04.1984 passed in
appeal no. 691 of 1983 is not traceable.
Learned Standing Counsel is not able to
show any illegality in the decision of the
Tribunal.

8. There is no dispute that Nagar
Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil and Raunsa
Oil are the oils and they are not been
classified elsewhere under any of the
Notification. The entry "Oil of all kinds"
is a generic entry and includes all kinds of
oil. Thus, there appears to be no reason
why Nagar Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil
and Raunsa Oil are not covered under the
entry "Oil of all kinds". It is settled
principle of law that effort should be to
classify a commodity under the entry and
if it is not possible to classify under any
of the entry then only the commodity
should be taxed as an unclassified goods.
In the case of Collector of Central
Excise, Shillong Versus Wood Craft
Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (3) SCC
page 454, Apex Court held that the
residuary can be resorted to only when
even a liberal construction of the specific
headings is not capable of covering the
goods in question. Thus, in the absence of
any specific entry relating to the aforesaid
three items, being essential oils has been
rightly covered under the generic entry
"Oil of all kinds".

9. In the result, both the revisions
are allowed in part. The order of the
Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed
to pass appropriate orders under section
11 (8) of the Act. Revision allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.12.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V M SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J

First Appeal From Order No. 820 of 1999

National Insurance Company Ltd.

 ...Appellant
Versus.
Smt. Madhulika Lal and others

 ...Claimant-respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri. M.S. Haq.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Shashi Nandan
Miss Awantika Banerji