K. C. AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS revision under section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, has been preferred by the department against the judgment of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated June 22, 1989, dismissing the appeal preferred under section 14 of the said Act. For the assessment year 1977-78 (July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977), the assessing authority levied the tax of Rs. 3,995. 67 on the sale of fish-meal worth Rs. 57,081. 47 and charged interest as well in the sum of Rs. 2,158. 75 under section 11-B of the Act. Against this order of the assessing authority, the assessee (non-petitioner) preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who by his order dated September 27, 1984, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the assessing authority holding that as fish-meal was exempt from taxation, no tax could be imposed thereon. The department filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order.
(2.) THE argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the non-petitioner was a poultry-feed dealer, the Tribunal committed an error in treating the sale of poultry feed as fish-meal and holding that the non-petitioner was not liable to tax. Poultry-feed was liable to tax prior to issue of Notification dated March 5, 1979. THErefore, for the assessment year 1977-78, a poultry-feed dealer was liable to tax, Fish-meal, however, was considered to be a fertiliser and was, therefore, a manure and exempted from tax. The case of the petitioner was that since the non-petitioner was poultry-feed dealer and so was the purchaser therefor, the feed had been wrongly treated as a fish-meal. The purpose for which the sale was made and for which it had been obtained were relevant considerations for holding whether the poultry-feed could be treated as fish-meal and, on that basis, entitled for exemption. It is not disputed that fish-meal was usable as manure and whether it was purchased for the use as feed, is not material. In the commercial circle, the commodity which is used for measure, could not be held to be otherwise only because some one use it as poultry-feed. Merely because the non-petitioner was a poultry feed dealer, it was not possible to conject that the commodity sold was not fish-meal and that the same was liable to be taxed treating it to be poultry-feed. The exemption granted is widely worded and there being no exemption to the same, the Tribunal rightly held it to be exempted from taxation. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;