Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Munnulal Basorelal Jain on 28 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: [1988]69STC78(MP)
Author: N.D. Ojha
Bench: N.D. Ojha
JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, C.J.
1. The non-applicant, M/s Munnulal Basorelal Jain, Sagar, is a contractor engaged in extraction of boulders. In the assessment proceedings, a question arose as to whether the extraction of boulders amounted to manufacture. The Sales Tax Officer, and the first appellate authority, held that extraction of boulders amounted to manufacture. On an appeal filed by the assessee, non-applicant, the Board of Revenue which is the Tribunal constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", however, came to a different conclusion and held that extraction of boulders did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.
2. Aggrieved by the order, the Commissioner of Sales Tax made an application before the Tribunal under Section 44(1) of the Act to refer the following question to this Court for its opinion :
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that extraction of boulders does not amount to manufacture ?
The said application having been dismissed, the present application under Section 44(2) of the Act has been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax with a prayer that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this Court for its opinion. A further prayer has been made requiring the Tribunal to refer another question whether the tax liability could have been determined on the basis of the appellant's own statement.
3. In so far as the second question is concerned, suffice it to say that no prayer having been made before the Tribunal under Section 44(1) of the Act to refer the said question to this Court, the prayer in the present application for requiring the Tribunal to refer that question cannot be granted.
4. As regards the first question, it has been pointed out by the Tribunal that extraction of boulders only involves digging of earth in order to loosen the boulders so as to facilitate their collection and transport. The Tribunal has further pointed out that on the boulders being so extracted, there is no transformation of any sort, nor any new and different article comes into existence. In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case and keeping in view the nature of the activity involved in extraction of boulders, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in taking the view that extraction of boulders did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(j) of the Act.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.