# AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. & ANR v. STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ORS - **Citation:** [1964] 8 S.C.R. 313 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961-10-23 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 88"/ ~~- and 888 of 1963 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, M. Hidayatullah, K. C. Das Gupta, J. C. Shah, Raghubar Dayal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amrit-banaspati-co-ltd-anr-v-sta-te-of-utt-ar-pradesh-and-ors-3267 - **Pages:** 19 ## Headnote Sales Tax-Salts tax levied at the Ttltt of one anna pe1 rupr,._Nelv' d•cimal coina~• introduad by Act No. 31 of 19SS-EQect on calculation of 1ales ta.r-Sales tax to be levied at the rate (If one 19M July, 27 1964 Amrit Blinaspati SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] anna or six ft.Toya Paisa-Indian Coinage Act, 1906 as 111nended by Act No. 31 of 1955. ,_ 14(3). (2). Co. F 6 v. or the as~essment years 195 -57 and 1957-58, the appellant was Slate of Uttar assessed to sales tax in respect of Vanaspati and oil under the U.P. Pradesh · Sales Tax Act, 1948. By a notification issued on ~larch 31, 1956 under s. 3-A(2), the rate of tax on Vanaspati Was fixed at one anna per rupC:e at the point of sale by the manufacturer. The appellant and S. P. Bhasin, a shareholder of the company. filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the U.P. Sales Tax Validation Ac4 1958 and also prayed for ·1he quashing of the assessment order dated October 15, 1960 and the order dated February J, 1961, of the Sales Tax Judge (Appeals), ~feerut, in connection with the assess.ment of tax on the sale of Vanaspati and other articles both on the ground that the 'sale tax was assesse~ at a higher rate than was permissible under a valid law and that the tax had been assessed at the rate of one anna and not at 6 Naya Paisa per rupee. The writ petition was dismissed .by_ a 'single Judge of the_ High Court and the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by High COurt. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. The only point urged before this Court was that the tax shouIJ have been calculated at the rate of 6 Naya Paisa per rupee and I'.ot at the rate of one anna per rupee as laid down in the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the notice issued under its provi"iions. Dismissing the appeal, Ileld (per P. B. Gajendragadkar. C.J., M. Hidayatullah, K. C. Das ·Gupta and Raghubar· Dayal, JJ.): The High Court was ri,ght in construing the provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 14 of Indian Coinage Act to mean that references to values in any enactment, notification, nl!e er _order under any enactment or in any contract, . deed or jnstrumei:t, expressed in old coins should be construed to be references to value-; expressed in new coins by converting the old values at the rat S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REP01{TS 313 curred after the Act, it must be interpreted reasonably that 1964 s. 13 also applies to such decrees. Mr. Pathak, learned K. Hutchi counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends Goll'der that s. 13-A only applies to pre-Act debts, as s. 7 which Richobd;.; Fath< declares the scheme of scaling down of debts applies only mull and Co. to pre-Act debts and the only exception to it is s. 13-A. Subba Rao J. Be that as it may, we cannot construe s. 13 with the aid of s. 13-A which was introduced by the Amending Act 23 of 1948. This appeal .does not call for an interpretation of s. 13-A of the Act and we shall not express any opinion thereon. The legal position may be briefly stated thus. Section 7, 8, 9 and 13 form a group of sections providing the principles of scaling down of debt• incurred by agriculmrists under different situations. A debt can be scaled Clown in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the same. But in the case of debts that have ripened into decrees, s. 19(1) and (2) prescribe a special procedure ror reopening the decree only in respect of debts incurred before the Parent Act. The Parent Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts incurred after it came into force, and for understandable reasons the relief in respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the rate of interest. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the order o! the High Court is correct. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. & ANR. v. STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ORS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Sales Tax-Salts tax levied at the Ttltt of one anna pe1 rupr,._Nelv' d•cimal coina~• introduad by Act No. 31 of 19SS-EQect on calculation of 1ales ta.r-Sales tax to be levied at the rate (If one 19M July, 27 1964 Amrit Blinaspati SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] anna or six ft.Toya Paisa-Indian Coinage Act, 1906 as 111nended by Act No. 31 of 1955. ,_ 14(3). (2). Co. F 6 v. or the as~essment years 195 -57 and 1957-58, the appellant was Slate of Uttar assessed to sales tax in respect of Vanaspati and oil under the U.P. Pradesh · Sales Tax Act, 1948. By a notification issued on ~larch 31, 1956 under s. 3-A(2), the rate of tax on Vanaspati Was fixed at one anna per rupC:e at the point of sale by the manufacturer. The appellant and S. P. Bhasin, a shareholder of the company. filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the U.P. Sales Tax Validation Ac4 1958 and also prayed for ·1he quashing of the assessment order dated October 15, 1960 and the order dated February J, 1961, of the Sales Tax Judge (Appeals), ~feerut, in connection with the assess.ment of tax on the sale of Vanaspati and other articles both on the ground that the 'sale tax was assesse~ at a higher rate than was permissible under a valid law and that the tax had been assessed at the rate of one anna and not at 6 Naya Paisa per rupee. The writ petition was dismissed .by_ a 'single Judge of the_ High Court and the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by High COurt. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. The only point urged before this Court was that the tax shouIJ have been calculated at the rate of 6 Naya Paisa per rupee and I'.ot at the rate of one anna per rupee as laid down in the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the notice issued under its provi"iions. Dismissing the appeal, Ileld (per P. B. Gajendragadkar. C.J., M. Hidayatullah, K. C. Das ·Gupta and Raghubar· Dayal, JJ.): The High Court was ri,ght in construing the provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 14 of Indian Coinage Act to mean that references to values in any enactment, notification, nl!e er _order under any enactment or in any contract, . deed or jnstrumei:t, expressed in old coins should be construed to be references to value-; expressed in new coins by converting the old values at the ratnt Oi 7 annas and 5 annas and 37 naye Ragliubar Dayal/. paise is the next coin .below 37! naye paise which are equally below 38 naye paise and above 37 naye paise and the artificial mode of calculation directs the equivalents to be fixed, in such circumstances, to the new coins below. · It is to be noted that each coin of one kind, tendered, is not .considered as a unfr for the purposes of calculation, but all the wins of the denomination are to be treated as one unit for this purpose. This is to ensure payment of the amounts due as fully as possible. This will again be clear from a concrete example. Seven one-anna pieces are tendered, ·say, at one payment. If each separate piece he taken to be valid payment for 6 naye paise, the seven one- .anna pieces will be good payment for 42 naye oaise only, but if taken as a whole, they would be good payment for 44 naye paise. Similarly, five one-pice pieces will be good payment for 8 naye paise only and not for 10 naye paise which would be the case if each one-pice piece was treated as good payment for 2 naye paise, its equivalent, if it be converted singly to naye p.:iise. lt is therefore clear that the provisions of sub-s.(2) provide for the conversion of old coins into new at the time of payment or of accounting, and then too for the conversion of the old coins within the limit of the extent to which they are legal tender, which means that one cannot insist on paying· a total sum of several rupees in naye paise calculated in the manner laid down in sub-s. (2) of s. 14 and.that two factors affect the determination of the nnmber of naye paise equivalent in value to the value of the old coin of annas, pice or pies tendered, the two factors being the rate specified! and the artificial way of calculation. The result of the artificial way of calculation is that sometimes equivalent number of naye paise is less than the actual value o[ the old coins at the specified rate and sometimes it is higher, the difference being, however, very small. · 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS J9M Sub-section (3), however, deals with a different matter. , . -B- . It has nothing to do with the actual payment of any amount. n.mrit anaspati . . . Co. It provides a rule for construmg values expressed m old S v-, Utt coins as values expressed in new coins or naye paise, and late OJ ar h" h' b' th 1 f . "f Pradesh to ac 1eve t IS o ject, e on y actor necessary to spec1 y R h b--D 11 is the rate at which the value of the old coins is to be converag u ar aya . • th f . . ted mto e value o the new cams. The c b1ect of the· provision is to provide a measure for arriving ~t the equivalent value in terms of new coins and not to provide bow any amount due in terms of old coins is to be paid in terms of new coins. Sub-section ( 3) therefore simply provides that references, in any of the documents referred to in that sub-section, to any value expressed in annas, pice and pies shall be construed as references to that value expressed in new coins converted thereto at the rate specified in sub-s. (2). Sub-s. (2) specifies the rate. The rate specified in sub-s. (2) is 16 annas, 64 pice or 192 pies to 100 new coins or naye paise. It is this rate which is referred to in sub-s. ( 3). There is nothing in sub-s. (3') which can be taken to refer to that part of sub-s. (2) which relates to the actual calculation for arriving at the number of new coins deemed equivalent in value to a certain number of l\nl)aS, pice or pies, coins tendered within the limits of legal tender. The provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 14 provide for the conversion ot the value of old coins into that of new coins at the rate specified in sub-s. (Z) and do not provide for conversion to be in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (2). The other expression would have been preferable if the legislat11re bad intended that the references of values expressed in old coins be construed as references to values in new coins according to the mode of artificial calculation mentioned in sub-s.(2). The provisions deal with the method of construction of the expression of the value in documents, be they private documents or be they enactments or notificntions, or rules or orders. The object was to determine the equivalent value which may be taken to replace the value as expressed in old coins. If the contention urged for the appellant be accepted, the values expressed in annas, pice or pies will not, on conversion, be precisely equivalent but could be very much divergent and would ad-rersety affect 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 321 the interests of the persons to whom money be due or in 1964 certain circumstances, the interests of the person from Amrit Banmpatl whom it be due. This could not have been contemplated by Co. the legislature. The futility of the appellants' contention State !; Uttt11 that the provisions of sub-s. ( 3) not only refer to the rate Prade1h specified in sub-s. (2) but also to the method of calculation Rnthub-;;;f,1111111. mentioned in that sub-section, is apparent from the anomalies which would arise if it be accepted. This can be illustrated from the various facts of these appeals. It is the appellants' contention in writ petition no. 1003 of 1961 that the sales tax calculated at the rate of 6 naye paise and not at 1 anna per rupee on the whole turnover o( Rs. 1,40,18,170.84 would reduce the tax demanded by the Sales Tax Officer by Rs. 34,355. This means that if the tax is calculated at the rate of 1 anna per rupee, as expressed in the relevant provision of law or at 6.25 naye paise per rupee, the amount of tax due from the appellant would be Rs. 34,355 more than the amount of of the same tax on the same turnover calculated at an equivalent value of 6 naye paise per rupee. In the other writ petition, no reference was made by the appellants to the manner of calculating the tax, the manner of calculation adopted by the taxing authority being the same as in the other writ petition, as the appellants' claim for refund, if determined at the values of one .anna and nine pies calculated in accordance with sub-section ( 2) of s. 14, would have been much reduced. It will be sufficient to state that in clause (e) of para 16 of the writ peti\ion, the figures for the years 1956-57 for the amount paid at one anna per rupee and the amount payable at 9 pies per rupee would then vary the amount refundable to the appellant in a way as to make it much less. The figures would stand thus : Total amount paid at I anna per rupee Amount payable at 9 pie1 Amount refundable, and th0,,7:46 IO 6 6,0,,167 5 3 2,00,559 ' 3 If the amount payable be calculated .at the rate of five naye paise in place of 9 pies, the amount refundable would be 51 S.C.-21. 1964 A.mrlt Ban41pati Co. •• State of Uttar Pradesh Raghubar v.,1111. 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1g64] much less as shown below : Ra • 1>P. TotaJ an1ount paid at I anna per rupee 8,05.7•6 65 Amount payable at ' naye pii.ise 6,44,661 32 ------ Amount refundable 1,61,065 33 The appellant stood to lose by calculating the tax payable in terms of naye paise and therefore made up an account at the old coin rates. The legislature could not have intended, by the provisions of sub-section (3), that a mere provision for working out the value in old coins into values in new coins should provide scope for such huge variations in the actual amo:m!s to be paid or received. The process of conversion is not meant or designed to be a process for gaining more or less than what is rightfully due under a provision of law or under any contractual term. The conversion is a simple process necessitated by the exigency of payment to be in currency different from the one in which the payment was to be. We are therefore of opinion that what sub-section (2) of s. 14 requires is that references to any value expressed in annas, pice and pies will be construed to such values expressed in new coins which would be absolutely equivalent to the value of the old coins when their value is converted at the rate of 16 annas, 64 pice and 192 pies to 100 naye paise. Great reliance is placed for the appellants on the decisions of this Court in M. G. Beedi Works v. State of Mysore('). Apparently some observations of this Court in that case support the appellants' contention. But, when they are considered in the context of that case, they do not support the contention as the Court had not to deal in that case with the actual contention now raised before us. In the Beedi Works Case the sales tax was to be levied 11t the rate of 3 pies for every rnpee of turnover. The {I) [1963) Supp. I S.C;R., 275. 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 323 amount of tax calculated at 3 pies per rupee worked out to 1964 Rs. 91,690 and, calculated at the rate of two naye paise Amrit Baruupatl the equivalent value of 3 pies, when calculated in the Co. manner laid down in sub-section (2) of s. 14, worked out Stat• ~i Ut""' to a figure higher by Rs. 25,038. The tax was assessed Pradesh at two naye p.aise per rupee in view of the provisions of Raghu;;;Dayt111. the Mysore Existing Laws (Construction of References to Values) Act, 1957 (Mysore Act XII of 1957). Section 3 of that Act said : "3. Construction of rdcrenccs to certain values in existing laws.- In every existing law, all references to any value expressed in annas, pice and pies, sha!l be construed at references to that value expressed in new coins referred to in subsection ( 1) of section 14 of the Indian Coinage Act, 1906 (Central Act III of 1906), converted thereto at the rate specified in sub-section (2) of section 14 of the said Act." The assessee, by his writ petition, questioned the validity of the enactment which led to such a result in the ·amount of tax assessed. The contention raised was not that the rate of calculation was wrong, but was that the law providing for the assessing of tax at the rate of 2 naye paise instead of 3 pies per rupee was invalid 1 as it amounted to enhancing the tax by an Act which was not en.acted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Constitution. This is clear from what was stated at p. 277, it being- "The grievance of the appellant was that according to the Mysore Sales Tax Act he was liable to sales tax at the rate of 3 pies for every rupee on the turnover and calculated on that basis the amount of tax would be Rs. 91,690, but after the amendment of the Indian Coinage Act (Act 3 of 1906) by the Amending Act 31 of 1955 the rate of s.ales tax which was levied on the appellant's Beedis was · 02 nPs. per rupee lHf AMri1 BantUt!t#I Co. •• ftrl• of Uttat Prad .. h • 3'; ""' Dayal J. SUPREldE COURT REPORTS [rg64J and thus the appellant was called upon to pay Rs. 25,038, more than he would have T)aid if he had been charged at the rate of 3 pi~ per rupee. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in the High Court and before us that this amounted to enhancement of tax which was illegal because the tax had not been increased in the manner provided under the Constitution and thus it was a bre.ach of Article 265 of the Constitution and was therefore void and illegal." This Court further said, at p. 279: "Two objections were taken to the validity of the tax : Firstly it was argued that by the substitution of 2 naye paise in place 3 pies there was a change in the tax exigible by the Mysore Sales Tax Act and this could only be done if that enactment had been passed according to the procedure for Money Bills in the manner provided by Articles 198, 199 and 207 of the Constitution and as no such Money Bill was introduced or passed for the enhancement of the tax, the tax was illegal and invalid.". It is clear that the contention was not that the tax shou!d be calculated at a rate equivalent to 300/192 naye paise i.e., 1-9/16 naye paise and not at 2 naye pairds wherever the old legal tender, i.e., annas, pico and pies is mentioned in an enactment it is to be converted into naya paisas and the naya paisas are to be substituted in place of the old legal tender calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section (2)." Stress is placed on the last sentence but this cannot be taken as the -decision of the Court on the question that subsection (3) of s. 14 made reference not only to the rate of conversion but also to the mode of calculation, as !hat question had not been considered in any manner. The last sentence was a sort of a paraphrase of what had been said earlier in the quotation with respect to the provisions of sub-section (3). This is clear from the facts that the provisions of sub-section (3) have not been stated in full, and have been referred to upto the stage of reference- to the new coin -referred to in sub-section ( 1) and that the last portion of the provisions of sub-section (3), i.e., 'converted thereto at the rate specified in sub-section (2 )' has not been mentioned. It is thus that the latter part of the observa- SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1964 tions happened to refer to the method of calculation and Jfmrlt Banaspati not to the rate specified in sub-section (2). The Court Co. . was, at the time, thinking of the value of 3 pies in terms state ;; Uttar of naye p.aise as . calculated according to the provisions of Pradesh sub-section (2), there being no contest before it that the Jlagrwba;Dayal 1. value substituted to the equivalent of 3 pies for assessing the tax was not a correct value for substitution in place of 3 pies. We therefore do not construe the expression relied upon by learned counsel for· the appellant· to be a decision of the· Court on the construction of the provisions cf subsection (3) of s. 14 and are therefore of opinion that the observations iii that case cannot be taken to be a decision of this Court on the actual point for determination · now before us. :Shalo /. We therefore hold that the High Courtis right in construing tbe provisions of sub-section (3) of s. 14 of tbc Indian Coinage Act to mean that references to values in any enactment, notification, rule or order under any enactment or in any contract, deed or instrument, expressed in old coins should be construed to be references to values expressed ill new coins by converting the old values at the rate of 16 annas, 64 pice and. 192 pies to 100 naye pais:!. We accordingly dismiss the appeals with costs. SHAH, J.-I am unable to agree.with the view expressed by my learned brother Raghubar Dayal, J., about the interpretation of s. 14 which was incorporated by Act 31 of 1955 in the Coinage Act ill of 1906 ... For the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 the appellant was assessed to sales tax in respect of "Vanaspati" and "oil" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act XV of 1948, ,ll3 amended by the U.P. Act XXV of 1948. By a notification issued on March 31, 1956 under s. 3-A(2) the rate of tax on ''V anaspati" was fixed at one anna per rupee, at the point of sale by the manufacturer. Validity of that imposition was challenged by tbe appellant, but the question is not now open to be canvassed in view of. the decision of this Court in I. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Utrar . Pradesh('). The only question which survives is about L'1e --------- (1) (1962] 2 S.C.R. I 8 S.C.R .. • SUPREME COURT REPORTS 327 --<~·--·· · quantum of liability of the appellant under the notification, 1964 in terms of the new decimal coinage introduced by Act 31 Amrit llaTUUpatl of 1955. The appellant has claimed that its liability ccmCo. puted in the light of s. 14 (3) of the Coinage Act V.'Ou!d be Stat• ~i Uttar Rs. 34,385, less than the amount demanded by the Taxing Pradesh Authorities. Section 13 of the Coinage Act III of 1906 Shah J. (which was substituted by Act 28 of 194 7 for the original sections 13 and 14) in so far as it is material provides: " ( 1) The coins issued under the authority of sec· tion 6 shall be a legal tender in payment or on account,- (a) in the case of a rupee coin, for any sum; (b) in the case of a half-rupee coin, for any sum not exceeding ten rupees; ( c) in the case of any other coin, for any sum not exceeding one rupee: (2) • • • . .. Section 14 which added by Act 31 of 1955 provides: · " ( 1) The rupee shall be divided into one hundred . units and the new com representing such unit may be designated by the Central Government, by notification in the Official · Gazette, under · such name as it thinks fit, and the rupee, halfrupee and quarter-rupee shall be respectively equivalent to one hundred, fifty and twenty-five such new coins and $hall, subject to t.'ie provisions of sub-section (1) and sul>-section (2) of section 13 and to the extent specified therein, be a legal tender in payment or on account accordingly. (2) All coins issued under the authority of the Act . in any denoriinations of annas, pice and pies shall, to the extent specified in section 13, be 1964 .tf.mril Baruupati Co. Y. SUPRE1IB COURT .REPORTS State of Uttar Pradesh a legal tender in payment· or on account at the rate of sixteen annas, sixty-four pice or one hundred and' nlliety-two pies to one hundred new coins referred to in sub-section ( 1) calculated in respect of any such single coin or number of such coins, tendered at one transaction, to the nearest new coin, or where the new coin above and the new coin below are equally near, to the new coin below. Shah/. (3) All references in any enactment or in any notification, rule or order under any enactinent or in any contract, deed or other instrument to any value expressed in annas, pice and pies shall be construed as references to that value expressed in new coins referred to in sub-section ( 1) converted thereto at the rate specified in sub-section (2)." Sub-section ( 1) of s. 14 declares a rupee as equivalent to a hundred new coins, and a half-rupee and a quarterrupee as equivalent to fifty new coins and twenty-five new coins respectively. These new coins are made legal tender in payment or on account as provided in s. 13 of the Act . . By sub-section (2) all coins issued under the authority of the Act in denomi.nations of annas, pice and pies also remain legal tender in payment or on account at the rate of sixteen annas, sixty-four pice or one hundred and ninetytwo pies to one hundred new coins. An anna is therefore made legal tender for 25!4, a pice for 25!16, and a pie for 25j48 new coins. But this involves adjustment of fractions of new coins, and the Legislature has, instead of issuing fractions of new coins-a step which would have involved the issue of coins of insignificant value-provided for rounding off fractions of new coins, when to discharge an ascertained liability in a single transaction payment is made in annas, pice or pies. This table of equivalence prescribed by sub-section (2), however, applies only when payment is made in old coins to discharge liability under a single transaction. Sub-section (3) is an interpretation clause. \V'here under any law, contract or instrument, reference fa made S S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 329 to annas, pice ~r pies, liability arising ill any transaction 1964 governed thereby will be construed in terms of new coins Anult Banaspatl converted at the rate specified in sub-section. (2). 1bis Co. conversion involves two steps: substitution of the valuo s1a11 ~i Uttar in terms of new coins by the application of rates mentioned Pradesh in sub-section (2), and rounding off the fractions, if any, Shah 1. resulting from, such application. When there is in any law, contract or instrument a reference to any value expressed in terms of annas, pice or pies, by sub-section ( 3) the reference has to be construed as if the value is expressed in terms of new coins at the rates specified in sub-section (2). Liability to pay an amount in one transaction ascertained in terms of new coins may be discharged under subs...<>ction (2) by tender of annas, pice or pies according to the table of equivalence and the fractions may be rounded off. But in the ascertainment of liability under a transac-. tion, sub-section (2) does not come into play. Liability under a transaction is ascertained under the general law, and sub-section (3) comes in aid as an interpretation clause when the value is expressed in some law, contract or instrument governing a transaction not in terms of new coins, but of annas, pice or pies. Sub-section (3) does not attract the rule of rounding off at the stage of discharge of liability under any concrete transaction: it merely prescribes the value which shall be deemed to be substituted in any law, contract or instrument when the value is specified therein in t=s of annas, pice or pies. It is attracted when liability declared in annas, pice or pies is to be ascertained in terms of new coins whereas sub-section (2) operates in considering whether a certain payment in ann~, pice or pies discharges an ascertained liability. There is nothing in the statute which supports the view that what the Legislature intended by enacting sub-section (3) was computation of liability in terms of old coim and then conversion and rounding off of the total liability in temis of new coins. To interpret clause (3) in that manner would be to denude it of its true purpose as an interpretation clause, and to render it practically nugatory. · If subsection (3) is merely intended to serve as determinative of SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64J 1964. total liability under a transaction, the purpose is amply Amrit Ba1111Spatl served by sub-section (2). - . Co. -"· The view I have expressed also finds support from a SJate Pr~esh Uttar judgment of this Court_ in Mis. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. The State of Mysore and another( 1 ). In that Shah 1• _ case, sales-tax was imposed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act 6 of 1948 at the rate of three pies for every rupee of the turnover. On the application of s. 14 of the Indian Coinage {Amendment) Act, 1955, sales-tax leviable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act was computed at the rate of two new coins per rupee of the turnover, and a demand for Rs. 1,16,72 ·44 was made. The tax-payer contended that he was liable to pay Rs. 91,690 only being the amount of total tax liability computed at the rate of 3 pies per rupee of turnover. He challenged the additional demand by a · petition in the High Court of Mysore on the plea that the Act which altered the incidence was a taxing measure and could only be enacted after complying with the provisions of Arts. 198, 199 and 207 of the Constitution relating to money bills, and the Mysore Existing Laws (Construction of Reference to Values) Act 12 of 1957 which gave eITect to the amendment made by Act 31 of 1955, dealt with . "coinage and legal tender", and was not within the competence of the State Legislature. In dealing with these contentions, this Court summarised the scheme of clauses ( 1), (2) and (3) of s. 14 and observed: "Sub-section (3) provides that all references under any enactment to annas, pice or pies have to be construed as reference to the new coin referred to in sub-section ( 1). In other words, wherever the old legal tender, i.e., annas, pice and pies is mentioned in an enactment it is to be converted into· naya Paisas and the naya Paisas are to be substituted in place of the old legal tender calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section (2)." The Court rejected the claim of the tax-payer tb.:it he WM liable to pay tax computed at th~ rate of three pies per (t) [1963] Supp. I S.C.R >1'· 8 S.C.R' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 331 rupee only. If sub-section (3) of s. 14 was suscepti"ble of 1964 the interpretation submitte.d on beha1f of the State of Uttar .dmrlt Banaspatl· Pradesh, it was wholly unnecessary to enter upon the question Co. of the vires cif the provisions, because between the computa- Stata ~i Uttar tion of sales-tax on a total turnover of Rs. 58,36A22.25 nPs Pradesh" at 2 · naye Paise, and at the r.ate of 3 pies per rupee s'hdi. in the manner suggested, there would have resulted no discrepancy at all, and the contention of the tax-payer that he was liable to pay Rs. 91,690 had to be accepted. But this Coun upheld the claim of the SaleS Tax Depattment that the computation had to be made by substituting two naye Paise in the section of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, which imposed liability for payment of tax, and the total demand for tax computed on the footing of that substitution was properly made.