Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ambica Agro Product....Opponent(S) on 20 October, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.J. Shastri
O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 923 of 2013
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 924 of 2013
TO
TAX APPEAL NO. 927 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
AMBICA AGRO PRODUCT....Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 20/10/2016
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI) Page 1 of 20 HC-NIC Page 1 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant by way of present Tax Appeal has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad dated 21.10.2010 passed in Second Appeal No.254 of 2004, whereby the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("The Tribunal"
for short) has held that process carried by respondent no.2 was not a manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act ("The Act" for short) and consequently, the original appeal filled by the opponent no.2 herein came to be allowed. It is against this judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the present tax appeal came to be filed raising substantial question of law.
2. It appears from the record that this tax appeal is a cognate tax appeal to other appeals, which are numbered as Tax Appeal No.924 of 2013 to Tax Appeal No. 927 of 2013 and since the issues arising out of those are identically situated to the present tax appeal, the consolidated order came to be passed on 13.12.2013 while admitting these appeals.
3. Since the facts are similar in all these appeals, the issue is taken up for final disposal by treating Tax Appeal No.923 of 2013 as a lead matter and the same would govern the situation of other tax appeals as referred to above.
4. While admitting these appeals referred to above, following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has Page 2 of 20 HC-NIC Page 2 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT rightly held that, the process carried out by the exporter on goods purchased by the respondent herein - original appellant was not process of "manufacture" as defined under section 2(16) of the GST Act ?
(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly held that, the goods exported by the exporter was the same goods purchased from the respondent (dealer) and consequently sale by the dealer to the exporter would be sale prior to export sale and would be covered by section 5(3) of the Central Act ?"
5. The facts giving rise to these appeals are summarized as under:
In Tax Appeal No. 923 of 2013 with respect to a business of Castor oil, the respondent no.2 has registered himself under the provisions of Gujarat Sales Tax act, 1969 as well as under
the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in response to the assessment year 1999-2000 the Assistant commissioner assessed the petitioner under both the Acts vide order dated 30.03.2002, which has led the opponent to file an appeal before the appellate authority and in the appeal the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed both the appeals by an order dated 17.12.2003 and it is against that order Second Appeal came to be filed before the VAT Tribunal at Ahmedabad and all the appeals, as referred to above, came up for consideration before the VAT Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by a judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 and it is against this judgment the Revenue has filed these appeals, which are put up for final consideration.Page 3 of 20
HC-NIC Page 3 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
6. It is emerging from the record that opponent herein is manufacturing the Castor oil out of Castor seeds and sales to various customers and the commodity Castor oil sold against 'Form H'. the said 'Form H' came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and held that the exporter (i.e. in the present case Hindustan Unilever Ltd.) had purchased Castor oil from the opponent but has not sold the Castor oil in the very same form in which it had been purchased from the opponent, and after undertaking some process upon it the said oil came to be sold, which amounts to manufacture and resultantly, the tax demand along with penalty and interest had been generated by the authority under both the Acts. So far as Gujarat Sales Tax Act is concerned, the tax demand for the period as stated above came to be raised to the extent of Rs.7,45,628/- and in addition thereto, the penalty to the extent of Rs.4,47,377/- along with interest of Rs.4,77,202/- totaling amount Rs.16,70,207/- and so far as Central Sales Tax Act is concerned, the liability inflicted upon is Rs.33,163/- as a tax amount with penalty of Rs.19,898/- with interest of Rs.42,448/- totaling amount Rs.95,509/- and by determining this liability, the opponent was constrained to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority and against the said order of appellate authority, the Second Appeal came up for consideration before the VAT Tribunal. The learned VAT Tribunal, as stated above, has allowed the appeal, which has given rise to present tax appeal and hence, in the background of the aforesaid facts, the substantial questions of law came to be framed and the appeal has come up for final disposal.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in Page 4 of 20 HC-NIC Page 4 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT considering the process executed upon the Castor oil is not a manufacturing process. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the Castor oil was not retained in its original form by the purchaser from the opponent and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that having not maintained the same form of the commodity, the process which was undertaken was akin to manufacturing process. The learned Tribunal, has therefore, erroneously held the effect of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Learned AGP has also contended that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the statutory provision contained under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act as well as Section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. The definition contained has also not been properly construed and based upon misconstruction since the order is passed, the same is required to be corrected. It was also contended by the counsel that the learned Tribunal has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 SC 3055 in case of B.P. Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Tribunal which has led a proposition that refining crude oil amounts to manufacturing process. It was also contended that yet another decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 1895 in case of Devi Das Gopal Krishnan etc. Vs. State of Punjab, has also not been properly considered and by referring to the dictionary meaning of the word 'manufacture' the leaned counsel submitted that to transform or fashion raw material into a changed form for use and held that oil is produced out of the seeds, the process is nothing but a manufacturing process and leviable to tax being a new commodity generated out of it. The learned counsel further has drawn attention and contended that almost similar provision contained in Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1984, Page 5 of 20 HC-NIC Page 5 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the said provision in the year 1991, has held that conversion of coconut husk into a coconut fiber was a manufacturing process and the said reported decision in AIR 1991 SC 378 govern the situation of the case in hand and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has then contended after referring to above said decision that commercial quantity was processed and then sold as a First Grade Castor oil is not exempted and liable to tax since its marketability is also differing from the raw Castor oil and therefore, by contending this the learned counsel has submitted that the decision delivered by the learned Tribunal is not just and proper and not in consonance with proposition of law.
8. As against this, the counsel for the opponent has stated that the learned Tribunal has examined the entire process, which was applied by the purchaser upon the Castor oil and has submitted that after detailed examination of the process itself, the learned Tribunal has held that the same is not a manufacturing process and therefore, such conclusion arrived at upon detailed examination does not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the opponent has submitted that opponent has sold a commercial grade Castor oil to Hindustan Unilever Ltd. ("HUL" for the short) as exporter and the said sale has taken place against 'Form H' and it was that oil after refining process was exported as First Special Grade by HUL. The process, according to the counsel, is not that process which has changed the basic substance of Castor oil and therefore, the said processed article remained covered Page 6 of 20 HC-NIC Page 6 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT under Entry no.185 (II) in Schedule IIA. The learned counsel has drawn attention and contended the applicability of said Entry contained in Schedule IIA. The learned counsel has further drawn attention of this court about a letter dated 01.11.2004 written by University of Pune and addressed to HUL, which letter is an analysis report of Castor oil samples and has conveyed that goods are matching sufficiently and thus allows one to grade them as having the same quality. In addition to that, another analysis report had also been placed on record by the learned Tribunal at page.93 of the paper book compilation and by drawing attention to the same, it was specifically contended that the basic substance and characteristic of Castor oil is not substantially altered and therefore, the process which has been undertaken was not held as manufacturing process. Even Geo-Chem Laboratory Ltd. has also addressed a letter on 26.08.2005, which indicates that company is reputed and independent inspection and testing by company for Castor oil shipped to international destinations world wide, and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal, in addition to applicability of the relevant entry and provision, has gone into even the process stated to have been applied upon the Castor oil supplied by the opponent and therefore, since the order is passed in such a depth, the same is not required to be interfered with. It was also contended that since the foreign buyers of the opponent and exporters, wherein requirement of refining Castor oil / First Special Grade Castor oil, the exporter has merely cleaned and refined the oils before exporting the same and the same was transmitted against 'Form no.H' and therefore, denial of exemption and thrusting upon a tax liability is not just and proper, but not in consonance with the Page 7 of 20 HC-NIC Page 7 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT proposition of law on the issue and therefore, since the illegality committed by the authorities below came to be corrected by the learned Tribunal by a detailed order, the finding arrived at in the absence of any perversity does not require to be substituted. The substantial question of law which has been framed is getting answer from the finding of the learned Tribunal and therefore, the tax appeal may not be entertained.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that even a criminal complaint came to be filed against the Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) by joining the present opponent before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Unjha also examined by this court in a petition for quashing and the said criminal case by a common order came to be disposed of vide order dated dated 15.10.2005 and criminal complaint came to be quashed. Even this aspect has also been examined by he learned Tribunal and it is appearing that because of this Central controversy entangled in the present case, the learned Tribunal has examined the entire process executed upon Castor oil at length and only thereafter, has passed the judgment in question. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to various paragraphs of the said order passed by the High Court in quashing petition. However, the same is not that much relatable are not made part of the present order. It was also contended by the counsel that in various decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court it has been carved out that this activity, which is alleged to have executed upon the Castor oil, is not a manufacturing activity. To substantiate this contention the following decisions have been placed for consideration of the court. (i) 2005 1 SCC Page 8 of 20 HC-NIC Page 8 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT 264 and (ii) 2012 2 SCC 282, and therefore, contended that since the order passed by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with ratio laid down in those decisions and therefore, rightly held by the Tribunal that appeal deserves to be allowed and therefore, the counsel for the opponent submitted that such a pain staking judgment and order does not call for any interference. Hence, the tax appeal is required to be dismissed. No other submissions are made.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for respective parties and having gone through the material on record, we deem it proper to first of all consider the definition of word 'manufacture' defined under the provision of the statute Section 2(16) is defining the word 'manufacture' which covers the activity of producing, making, extracting, collecting altering ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing of any goods, but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed. The said definition reads as under:
2(16):- "manufacture" with all its
grammatical variations and cognate
expressions, means producing, making,
extracting, collecting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed".
The word as may be prescribed as used under this definition clause is attracting the provision contained under Page 9 of 20 HC-NIC Page 9 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Rule 3 of the rules in which the prescription is made and therefore, referring to this Rule 3 it can be seen that the process which has underwent on their product is not a manufacturing process and therefore, conjoin effect of the aforesaid statutory provision, it appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the process carried out was not a manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(16) of the GST Act.
11. To substantiate this conclusion a reference is also required to be made to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, this very issue was dealt with. In case of Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 264 referring to various decisions of the Apex Court, the court has come to the conclusion that merely because some process is carried out on the substance, the same is not to be treated as manufacturing process. In paragraphs 19 to 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made reference to several other decisions delivered in past and ultimately held that the activity cannot be termed as 'manufacture'. The said relevant extract of the decision are reproduced hereinafter:
"19. This court has held in a number of decisions that merely because some process has been carried on it is not necessary that a new commodity has come into existence. In the case of CCE v. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries the question was whether there was any manufacture when earth was processed ans spent earth derived therefrom. This court held that the burden to prove manufacture is always Page 10 of 20 HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT on the Revenue. It was held that merely because an item falls in a tariff entry, it could not be presumed or deemed that there was manufacture. It was held that to begin with the product was earth ans that even after processing it remained earth. It was held that the duty having been paid on earth, no duty was leviable on spent earth.
20. In the case of CCE v. Technoweld Industries the question was whether the drawing of wires from wire rods amounted to manufacture. I was held that both the products were wires and merely because they were covered by two separate entries did not mean that the product was excisable. It was held that in the absence of any manufacture the product did not become excisable merely because there were two separate entries.
21. In the case of Meltes (I) (P) Ltd. v. CCE it was again held that the burden of proving manufacture lay on the Revenue. It was held that laminated / metallised film remained a film and no new or distinct product has come into existence.
22. In the case of Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE the question was whether cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs amounted ton manufacture. It was submitted that such an activity has been specifically brought into the Page 11 of 20 HC-NIC Page 11 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT tariff item by indicating the process. It was submitted that once the process had been indicated in the tariff item, it would amount to manufacture. These arguments were negatived. It was held that to start with the commodity was a marble and even after cutting it remained marble. It was held that there was no manufacture.
23. It was submitted that the decision in Aman Marble Industries case is not laying down the correct law in as much as it has not taken note of the amended definition of the term "manufacture" in Section 2(f). It was submitted that for a process to amount to manufacture it need not be so mentioned only in the section or chapter note and that it could also be so mentioned in the tariff item. It is true that the amended definition has not been taken note of. We are in agreement with the submission that under the amended definition, which is an inclusive definition, it is not necessary that only in the section or chapter note it must be specified that a particular process amounts to manufacture. It may be open to so specify even in the tariff item. However, either in the section or chapter note or in the tariff entry it must be specified that the process amounts to manufacture. Merely setting out a process in the tariff entry would not be sufficient. If the process is indicated in the tariff entry, without specifying Page 12 of 20 HC-NIC Page 12 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT that the same amounts to manufacture, then the indication of the process is merely for the purposes of identifying the product and the rate which is applicable to that product. In other words, for a deeming provision to come into play it must be specifically stated that a particular process amounts to manufacture. In the absence of it being so specified the commodity would not become excisable merely because a separate tariff item exists in respect of that commodity.
24. In this case, neither in the section note nor in the chapter note nor in the tariff item do we find any indication that the process indicated is to amount to manufacture. To start with, the product was edible vegetable oil. Even after refining, it remains edible vegetable oil. As actual manufacture has not taken place, the deeming provision stated that the process amounts to manufacture."
12. Yet in another decision in case of Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd reported in (2012) 2 SCC 282 the ambit of word 'manufacture' has been analyzed by the Apex Court and has held that only when change or series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity, but instead is recognized altogether a new and distinct article, then it can be said that manufacturing process is undertaken. In this also the Apex Court has considered the definition of word 'manufacture' and by again referring to several other Page 13 of 20 HC-NIC Page 13 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT decisions, has held that since new distinct material altogether is not coming out having different identity and characteristic and use, the mixing process aggregate would not amount to manufacture and therefore, in following paragraphs no.30-34 the Apex Court has analyzed the position which requires the court to take a reference of it and therefore, reproduced herein after:
"30. We may now examine whether the process in question, otherwise amounts to manufacture under the expansive Section 2(f) of the Act. It is trite to state that "manufacture" can be said to have taken place only when there is transformation of raw materials into a new and different article having the a different identity, characteristic an use. It is well settled that mere improvement in quality does not amount to manufacture. It is only when the change or a series of changes take the commodity to a point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is instead recognized as a new and distinct article that manufacture can be said to have taken place.
31. In this behalf the following observations by the Constitution Bench of this court in Tungabhadra Industries are quite apposite: (AIR p.417, para 18) "18. In our opinion, the learned judge of the High Court laid an undue emphasis on the addition by way of the absorption of the Page 14 of 20 HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT hydrogen atoms in the process of hardening and on the consequent inter-molecular changes in the oil. The addition of the hydrogen atoms was effected in order to saturate a portion of the oleic and linoleic constituents of the oil and render the oil more stable thus improving its quality ans utility. But neither mere absorption of other matter, nor inter-molecular changes necessarily affect the identity of a substance as ordinarily understood. ...
The change here is both additive and inter- molecular, but yet it could hardly be said that rancid groundnut oil is not groundnut oil. It would undoubtedly be very bad groundnut oil but still it would be groundnut oil and if so it dose not seem to accord with logic that when the quality of the oil is improved in that its resistance to the natural processes of deterioration through oxidation is increased, it should be held not to be oil." (emphasis supplied by us.)
32. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., yet another Constitution Bench, exploring the concept of manufacture echoed the following views: (SCC p.794-95, para 14) "14. ... The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the Page 15 of 20 HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Vol.26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus:
'Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use.' " (emphasis supplied by us)
33. In S.R. Tissues (P.) Ltd., the issue for consideration was whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes of jumbo rolls into toilet rolls, napkins and facial tissue papers amounted to manufacture. While holding that the said process did not amount to manufacture this court inter alia, held as under: (SCC p.317, para 12) "12. .... However, the end use of the tissue paper in the jumbo rolls and the end use of the toilet rolls, the table napkins and the facial tissues remains the same, namely, for household or sanitary use. The predominant test in such a case is whether the characteristics of the tissue paper in the jumbo roll enumerated above is different from the characteristics of the tissue paper in the form of table napkins, toilet roll and facial tissue. In the present case, the Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT Tribunal was right in holding that the characteristics of the tissue paper in the jumbo roll are not different form the characteristics of the tissue paper, after slitting and cutting, in the table napkins, in the toilet rolls and in the facial tissues." (emphasis supplied by us)
34. In CST v. Pio Food Packers, a three-
Judge Bench of this court, while deciding whether conversion of pineapple fruit into pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans amounted to manufacture, observed as follows:
(SCC p.176, para 5) "5. ... Commonly, manufacture is the end result of one [or] more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another, and indeed there may be several stages or proceeding ans perhaps a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognized as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place. Where there is no essential difference in identity between the original commodity and the processed article it is not possible to say that one commodity has been Page 17 of 20 HC-NIC Page 17 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT consumed in the manufacture of another.
Although it has undergone a degree of processing, I must be regarded as still retaining its original identity." (emphasis supplied by us)"
13. Thus, it can be said from the above circumstance that the facts of the case on hand are also akin, wherein the basic characteristic and the use is not drastically changed and since the learned Tribunal after considering several decisions including that of Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion specifically with examination of process of the material sold by the purchaser is not out of any manufacturing process and therefore, the claim of exemption from the said Sales Tax Act is justified. The categorical finding that exporter who had purchased Castor oil from the opponent herein has not sold the Castor oil in the same form, but has done some process and therefore, it cannot be considered as a manufacturing process and therefore, it appears to this court also that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion in passing the order impugned in the appeal.
14. Before arriving at a final conclusion, the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are also required to be dealt with. If we refer to the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 3055, in which there was a purchase of crude oil of different varieties and after refining processing business was for selling as a refined oil. There is a substantial difference between the crude oil and conversion in refining oil, whereas here, in the case on hand, the substance is not distinctly getting the change after the process and it is Page 18 of 20 HC-NIC Page 18 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT not entirely coming out altogether a different commodity it merely remained as Castor oil, but after process gradation is getting change and therefore, there is a difference in the background of facts and therefore, the said decision delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no that much bearing. This is because of the fact that in later decisions referred to above almost very similar commodity is dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held specifically that the process cannot be termed as manufacturing process, and therefore, this decision of 1998 is of no effect to the Revenue. Similarly, in case of M/s. Devi Das Gopal Krishnan reported in AIR 1967 SC 1895 the court was confronted with a different issue related to chargeability and the clarification of the tax. In the said decision, the central issue was pertaining to interpretation of provisions contained under Punjab Central Sales Tax Act, 1948 and while dealing with the validity of the statutory provision contextual reference appears to have been made. In paragraph 30 of the said decision, there appears to be a reference related to refining oil produced out of seeds and therefore, it appears that the issue was in altogether a different context and therefore, we are of the opinion that when we are directly assisted by a latter decision of the recent time reported in 2012 2 SCC 289, wherein also the case law is discussed and dealt with right from 1961 onward. We feel it necessary to rely upon the decision reported in 2012 2 SCC (Supra) and therefore, referring to these propositions of law, we are of the opinion the Tribunal has not committed any error.
15. From the above circumstance, it is appearing that there is no illegality or irregularity of any nature is committed by the Page 19 of 20 HC-NIC Page 19 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/923/2013 CAV JUDGMENT learned Tribunal and therefore, question of law answered not in favour of the appellant and resultantly the tax appeal is required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed hereby.
16. Since the other related tax appeals which are referred to above identically situated are also accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and hence, all appeals are dismissed hereby.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.J. SHASTRI, J.) Dolly Page 20 of 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 20 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:45:09 IST 2016