SETH, J. - (1.) AT the instance of Messrs. Indodan Milk Products Ltd., a dealer in condensed milk, etc., the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, referred the following question in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 to this court for opinion : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, condensed milk is taxable under the Central Sales Tax in view of Notifications Nos. S.T. 911/X dated 31st March, 1956, and S.T. 776/X-900(16)-64 dated 16th February, 1965, of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and read with section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act ?"
(2.) WHILE hearing these references, a Division Bench of this Court felt that the case of Nestle's Products India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 606.), in which it has been held that condensed milk is not milk within the meaning of section 4(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, requires reconsideration. Accordingly, it referred these cases to a Full Bench and that is how they have come up before us. During the assessment years in question, the dealer sold condensed milk in soldered tins and other cans in the course of inter-State trade. The Sales Tax Officer brought the turnover in respect of such sales to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer then filed appeals against the assessment orders and contended that when during the course of inter-State trade it sold condensed milk in soldered tins and other cans, it did not sell the same in sealed containers. Sale of condensed milk, in such circumstances, was totally exempt from payment of sales tax as per notifications issued by the U.P. Government. In the circumstances it was not liable to pay Central sales tax also on such turnover, as provided in section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who heard the two appeals, did not go into the question whether in this case the dealer sold milk in sealed containers or not.
(3.) HE held that the turnover of sales of condensed milk was generally not exempt under the various notifications issued by the U.P. Government and as such the same was liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer then filed two revision applications before the Additional Judge (Revisions), which were dismissed and the two assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer as confirmed in appeal were upheld. Subsequently, at the instance of the assessee, the learned Judge (Revisions) referred the aforementioned question for the opinion of this court in both the cases.;