JUDGMENT
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.
2. The short but interesting question Sri Anantha Babu raises in these revision petitions is that the petitioner who is a dealer in jaggery is not liable to pay tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Firstly, it is urged that the proviso to item 1 of the Fifth Schedule is not applicable in the facts and circumstances and consequently no tax can be levied at the point of purchase. The second contention is that there is no machinery provision for the purpose of determining the purchase turnover of jaggery and the procedure to levy tax has not been prescribed. Although jaggery is included in the Fifth Schedule on 11th January, 1976, there is no corresponding inclusion of that item in rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 473, Revenue, dated 18th March, 1981 was issued. According to the learned counsel, between 1976 and 1981, there is no machinery provision for the determination of the purchase turnover of jaggery and consequently the declaration relating to the levy of tax contained in the Fifth Schedule becomes unworkable.
3. The Tribunal rejected both the above contentions. We may first peruse the Fifth Schedule. The item “jaggery” is added by Act No. 5 of 1976 with effect from 11th January, 1976, whereby tax is leviable at every point of sale in this State at the rate of six paise in the rupee. There is a proviso which reads :
“Provided that where jaggery is sold to a dealer by a person who is not a registered dealer otherwise than through an agent, the tax shall be levied at the point of purchase and not at the point of sale at the rate of six paise in the rupee.”
4. Learned counsel urges that the jaggery in question is purchased by the dealer from an agriculturist. Inasmuch as the agriculturist manufactures the jaggery, he is liable to be considered as a dealer himself. Agriculturists enjoy a privilege not to register themselves as dealers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It is urged that the exemption given to the agriculturists from registering as a dealer does not have the effect of the proviso coming into operation, as, in the facts and circumstances, it should be held that the dealer purchased the jaggery from a dealer who is liable to be registered under the Act. We are unable to agree. The expression “dealer” is qualified by “registered”, which would indicate that unless the dealer from whom the jaggery is purchased is registered under the Act the requirement is not satisfied. In the present case, it is not denied that although the jaggery is purchased from the dealer, the dealer is not registered under the Act. Therefore, the purchases are made from a person who is not a registered dealer and the proviso comes into operation, with the result that the assessee in this case is liable to pay tax at the point of purchase. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee’s contention in this regard.
5. As regards the second contention, learned counsel invites our attention to section 5 of the Act which is the charging section. It provides for the levy of tax on sales and purchases of goods. Sub-section (3) of section 5 states that for the purposes of this section and other provisions of the Act, the turnover on which a dealer shall be liable to pay tax, shall be determined after making such deduction from his total turnover and in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (4) further provides that the tax under this section shall be assessed, levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.
6. Learned counsel also invites our attention to rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. It is pointed out that rule 5 is the provision relating to the prescription of the machinery for determining the sale turnover as well as the purchase turnover referred to in section 5(3) and 5(4) of the Act. Rule 5(2) specifies that in the case of the goods mentioned therein the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these rules shall be the total amount payable by the dealer as consideration for purchase of the goods. Thereafter, a number of goods were specified. It is submitted that the item “jaggery” is not one of the goods specified in rule 5(2). The omission to include this item was noticed only in 1981 and by G.O.Ms. No. 473, Revenue, dated 18th March, 1981, the following item was included in rule 5(2) with effect from that date.
“(xxxiii-A) Jaggery, when purchased by a dealer from a person who is not a registered dealer otherwise than through an agent.”
7. Mr. Anantha Babu contends that the omission to include this item till 1981 has the effect of frustrating the determination of the purchase turnover for the purpose of assessment. It is urged that in the absence of the machinery providing for determination as specified in section 5(3) and 5(4) of the Act, it would not be permissible to levy tax on the purchase turnover of jaggery and consequently no tax can be levied on the purchase turnover of jaggery between 11th January, 1976 and 18th March, 1981, during which period rule 5(2) of the Rules did not contain the relevant provision relating to the determination of the purchase turnover of jaggery.
8. The argument appears to be attractive at first blush because it is elementary that without prescription of the relevant modalities for determination of the sale turnover and purchase turnover and the manner in which the assessment should be made, the entire endeavour to make an assessment would be frustrated. Between 1976 and 1981, the necessary prescription has not been made for the purpose of determining the purchase turnover of jaggery and also prescribing the manner in which the assessment is to be made and the tax to be collected. If the omission to include this item renders the determination difficult or impossible otherwise, then the contention of Sri Anantha Babu should prevail. However, we find that under the Fifth Schedule the item “jaggery” is liable to be taxed at every point of sale at the specified rate of six paise in the rupee. Where however, the proviso comes into operation as in the present case, the tax shall be levied at the point of purchase at the rate of six paise in the rupee. We have to give effect to the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule also and not treat them merely as superfluous. If effect is given to the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule, the omission to include the item “jaggery” in rule 5(2) does not have any consequential effect inasmuch as the tax payable by the dealer in respect of jaggery purchased may easily be determined under the Fifth Schedule and tax levied accordingly. Because of the omission to make the necessary provision in rule 5, it is not possible to hold that the Fifth Schedule is rendered inoperative. The Fifth Schedule which contains the relevant provisions should also be given the necessary effect. If such effect is given, we do not find any difficulty in determining the tax as specified in the Fifth Schedule. In the circumstances, we have to reject the contention of the learned counsel that the consequence of the omission to include the item “jaggery” between 11th January, 1976 and 18th March, 1981 is no tax could be determined and collected from the assessee on the purchase of jaggery.
We, therefore, consider that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting both the contentions of the assessee. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Government Pleader’s fee Rs. 150 in each.
9. Petitions dismissed.