Gujarat High Court
Cama Hotels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 18 November, 1998
Author: A.R. Dave
Bench: A.R. Dave
JUDGMENT
1. At the instance of the assessee, following question of law has been referred to us by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal arising out of its order dated December 27, 1995 :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant is not entitled to any refund under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 to the extent of tax paid by it on the purchases of goods made by the applicant which it has used in the preparation of food served by the applicant to its customers during the four financial years ending March 31, 1979, March 31, 1980, March 31, 1981 and March 31, 1982 ?"
2. One statement of case has been submitted in respect of four reference applications for four different assessment periods, viz., for the years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 relating to claim of the assessee to drawback, set-off and/or refund of tax paid by him on purchase of certain goods which according to him have been used by him in the manufacture of taxable goods, and about which he is entitled to claim relief under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970.
3. We may look at the background in which this issue has arisen. The applicant is a limited company and is engaged in the business of providing lodging and boarding facilities to its customers. In the course of its business it serves cooked food and drinks to its customers who are visiting the hotel as well as to visitors to the restaurant. For the purpose of preparing the food and drink, the applicant has to purchase various raw materials, consumable stores, etc., from the dealers registered under the Act. Prior to change in law brought about by Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called "the Act of 1982"), the controversy had arisen under various laws about levying tax on sale or purchase of goods, whether the service of food articles and drinks in a hotel or restaurant constitutes "sale of goods" for the purpose of levy of sales tax. In other words whether such service amounts to "sales" on which tax could be levied by the State, under entry 54 of List II and entry 92A of the List 1 of the Schedule which authorised respective Legislatures to levy "tax on sale or purchase of goods". This envisaged levy of tax on the event of "sale of goods" providing the State Legislature authority to levy tax. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. [1972] 29 STC 474 (SC); AIR 1972 SC 1131, decided on January 4, 1972 it was held that supply of food or drinks by a hotelier to a person lodged in the hotel was not sale of goods but was an event of service. By yet another decision in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1978] 42 STC 386; AIR 1978 SC 1591, the Supreme Court. held on September 7, 1978 that "the service of meals whether in hotel or restaurant does not constitute a sale of food for the purpose of levy of sales tax but must be regarded as rendering of a service for the satisfaction of human need or ministering to the bodily want of human beings. It would not make any difference whether the visitor of a hotel is charged for the meal as a whole or each dish separately".
4. Declaration of law by the apex Court meant that service of meals or drinks whether supplied to inmates of a hotel or to any visitor to a restaurant was not a taxable event of sale and on such transaction of service the dealer was not liable to pay sales tax. As per declaration of this law, for the period in question, the petitioner was not liable to pay tax on such supply of food articles or drinks to his customers who were inmates of his hotel or were served at restaurant run by it.
5. By enacting Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 which was brought into effect with effect from February 2, 1983, article 366 of the Constitution, which enacts definitions of various terms used in the Constitution was amended and a new clause (29A) was inserted, phrase defining "tax on sales or purchase of goods". Sub clause (29A)(1)(f) which is relevant for our-purpose read :
"(29A) 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes -
(a) to (e) ..........
(f) a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made."
6. Section 6 of the Act of 1982 spoke about validating and granting exemption in respect of proceedings and transactions that took place prior to commencement of Act of 1982. Section 6 reads as under :
"6. Validation and exemption. - (1) For the purposes of every provision of the Constitution in which the expression 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' occurs, and for the purposes of any law passed or made, or purporting to have been passed or made, before the commencement of this Act, in pursuance of any such provision, -
(a) the said expression shall be deemed to include, and shall be deemed always to have included, a tax (hereafter in this section referred to as the aforesaid tax) on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; and
(b) every transaction by way of supply of the nature referred to in clause (a) made before such commencement shall be deemed to be, and shall be deemed always to have been, a transaction by way of sale, with respect to which the person making such supply is the seller and the person to whom such supply is made, is the purchaser, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or authority, no law which was passed or made before such commencement and which imposed or authorised the imposition of, or purported to impose or authorise the imposition of, the aforesaid tax shall be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid on the ground merely that the Legislature or other authority passing or making such law did not have competence to pass or make such law, and accordingly -
(i) all the aforesaid taxes levied or collected or purporting to have been levied or collected under any such law before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed always to have been validly levied or collected in accordance with law
(ii) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court or before any Tribunal or authority for the refund of, and no enforcement shall be made by any court, Tribunal or authority of any decree or order directing the refund of, any such aforesaid tax which has been collected;
(iii) recoveries shall be made in accordance with the provisions of such law of all amounts which would have been collected thereunder as such aforesaid tax if this section had been in force at all material times.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any supply of the nature referred to therein shall be exempt from the aforesaid tax -
(a) where such supply has been made, by any restaurant or eating house (by whatever name called), at any time on or after the 7th day of September, 1978, and before the commencement of this Act and the aforesaid tax has not been collected on such supply on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected at that time; or
(b) where such supply, not being any such supply by any restaurant or eating house (by whatever name called), has been made at any time on or after the 4th day of January, 1972, and before the commencement of this Act and the aforesaid tax has not been collected on such supply on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected at that time :
Provided that the burden of proving that the aforesaid tax was not collected on any supply of the nature referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b), shall be on the person claiming the exemption under this sub-section.
(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, -
(a) nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing any person -
(i) from questioning in accordance with the provisions of any law referred to in that sub-section, the assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of the aforesaid tax, or
(ii) from claiming refund of the aforesaid tax paid by him in excess of the amount due from him under any such law; and
(b) no act or omission on the part of any person, before the commencement of this Act, shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this Act had not come into force."
The common premise is that during the period in question which fell before the date of commencement of Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1982, the assessee had not collected tax on such supplies on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected at the time when such service was rendered and his case is covered under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1982.
7. Rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, envisages that the assessee, who is a manufacturer can subject to general conditions of rule 47 and conditions prescribed under rule 42 claim drawback, set-off or as the case may be refund of the whole or any part of the tax in respect of purchases of the goods used by him in the manufacture. The assessee lay claim to drawback, set-off or refund of purchase tax paid by him on the raw material and stores, etc., purchased by him for the purpose of manufacturing food articles which have been used in offering services by way of supplying meals to its customers, either in a lodge, hotel or visiting its restaurant, inter alia, on the ground that if the article prepared out of such purchases, goods were taxable goods and the supply of goods to its customers has all been made within the State of Gujarat, in terms of the amended definition of "sale" in the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, amounted to the sale of the manufactured articles by the assessee in the State of Gujarat and he being a registered dealer liable to pay tax is entitled to claim refund of the amount paid by him as tax on purchase of such goods. The claim has been rejected by the assessing authority-Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) as well as the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, by holding that the assessee does not fulfil the condition drawback, set-off or refund inasmuch as he was not an assessee liable to pay tax on the sale of goods manufactured by use of such goods as have been purchased by him.
8. It will be profitable to reproduce at this juncture rules 42 and 47 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 to the extent they are relevant for the issue at hand :
"42. Drawback, set-off or refund of tax for the goods purchased by a manufacturer. - In assessing the tax payable by a manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), the Commissioner shall, subject to the general conditions of rule 47, and further conditions specified below, grant him a drawback, set-off or as the case may be refund, of the whole or any part of the tax in respect of the purchases of goods used by him in manufacture Conditions : (1) The assessee is a registered dealer as defined in clause (25) of section 2 of the Act, (2) the goods purchased are taxable goods other than those falling within the category of prohibited goods as defined in clause (21) of section 2 of the Act :
Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of the purchases of any of the goods as described in entries 26, 39 and 43 in Schedule 11, Part A, where any such goods are used by the assessee in the manufacture of any goods as described in the said entries, i.e., 26, 39 and 43.
Provided further that the condition shall not apply in respect of purchases of spare parts and accessories (hereinafter referred to as 'such goods') described in entry 55 of Schedule 11, Part A, where any such goods are used by assessee in the manufacture of machinery failing under entry 39 in Schedule 11, Part A, or as the case may be, in the manufacture of any such goods Provided also that this condition, shall not apply in respect of the purchases of 'ghee', when it is used by the assessee in the manufacture of sweets and sweetmeats.
(3) the said goods have been used by the assessee within the State, as raw or processing materials or as consumable stores in the manufacture of taxable goods as defined in clause (33) of section 2 of the Act, and (4) the goods so manufactured have been sold by the assessee in the State of Gujarat or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or of export out of the territory of India or have been transported by the assessee outside the State of Gujarat but within India, to his own place of business, or to the place of business of his agent, and sold there.
Extent of drawback, set-off, etc., shall be the amount calculated in the manner prescribed hereinunder, subject to the proviso. -
47. General conditions for grant of drawback, set-off or refund. - (1) No drawback, set-off or refund under these Rules shall be granted to an assessee for any amount of tax in respect of the purchase of any goods, unless, -
(A) the assessee is a dealer registered under the Act or under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, at the time of purchase of such goods and is liable to pay tax on the sale or resale of the goods so purchased or on the sale of the goods in the manufacture of which the goods so purchased are used, except where the assessee is entitled to a refund under rule 45 on the inter-State sales of declared goods.
Explanation. - If any such purchases of goods are covered by proviso to sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of section 3 of the Act, no drawback, set-off or refund shall be allowed under these Rules in respect of such purchases."
As can be noticed from reading of rule 42, the conditions necessary for its operation are : (1) the assessee must be a registered dealer within the meaning of section 2(25) of the Act; (2) the goods purchased are taxable an are other than those falling within the category of prohibited goods under section 2(21) of the Act; (3) the goods have been used by the assessee within the State as raw or processing material or as a consumable stores in manufacture of taxable goods as defined in section 2(33) of the Act and lastly, (i) the goods so manufactured have been sold by the assessee either in the State of Gujarat; (ii) or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; (iii) or in the course of export out of territory of India; (iv) or have been transported by the assessee outside the State of Gujarat, but within India to his own place of business or to the place of his agent and sold there, viz., where the goods have been so sent either to his own place of business or to the place of his agent.
9. There is no dispute about these facts either that the assessee fulfilled conditions (i), (ii) and (iv) inasmuch as he is a dealer registered under the Act, the goods purchased by him were not the prohibited goods, and the supplies made to customers by him amounted to sale within the State of Gujarat. However, it is urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the goods manufactured by the assessee, viz., cooked food was not taxable goods. This is urged on the basis that "cooked food" is exempted goods as per item 3 in Schedule 1 appended to notification under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act.
10. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent does not appear to be well-founded. For this purpose, entry 3 of Schedule I under section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, column 2 of the Schedule give the description of goods. It reads :
"Cooked food (excluding ice-cream and kulfi) and non-alcoholic drinks not containing ice-creams served at one time at a price of not more than five rupees per person, for consumption at or outside any eating house, restaurant, hotel, refreshment room or boarding establishment which is not a shop or establishment conducted primarily for the sale of sweetmeats, confectionery, cakes, biscuits or pastries."
Column 3 which provides for conditions and exceptions subject to which exemption is granted reads :
"Except when served outside any eating house, restaurant, hotel, refreshment room or boarding establishment at functions and parties."
It is obvious from the reading of the particulars giving the description of goods and conditions and exceptions subject to which exemption is granted, that goods itself have not been exempted from tax. What has been exempted from tax are transaction of particular class. The question whether goods are taxable or a particular transaction is taxable posits two entirely different concepts. The condition envisaged under rule 42 is to manufacture taxable goods, that is, at the stage of manufacture and not at the stage when a takable event takes place. The condition for claiming relief envisaged under sub-clause (3) of rule 42 is not to produce "a taxable event" of sale of goods conducted by the assessee, claiming drawback, set-off or refund, but is to produce goods bearing incidence of taxability, to be assumed at the point when manufacture takes place. It is not the case of the Revenue either that the cooked food as such is exempt from levy of tax under any provision. The provision on which reliance has been placed only makes it that if smaller quantity of cooked food is sold which at the relevant time was fixed at Rs. 3 per person then such small sales shall not be subjected to tax, that is to say, the exemption was to transaction of sale below Rs. 3 in certain conditions but the exemption was not attached to the goods itself. Whereas condition envisages where drawback, set-off, or refund are to be claimed is that goods manufactured should be taxable goods. This contention of the learned counsel about non-fulfilment of condition (3) of rule 42 in our opinion cannot be sustained and it must be held in the facts and circumstances of the case that assessee did fulfil all the four conditions prescribed in rule 42.
11. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that even if the goods were not exempt under item 3 of Schedule I the assessee were not liable to tax in respect of goods supplied by him in question because of the provisions of section 6 of the Act of 1982, it must be held that assessee did not manufacture taxable goods. For the reasons already stated, this argument is stated to be rejected. The taxable goods connote a different expression than a taxable transaction. What is envisaged in rule 42, to repeat, is manufacture of taxable goods, that is, whether the goods manufactured are liable to be taxed. The fact that the transaction of such goods is ultimately not subjected to tax, dependent upon various provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder or notifications issued thereunder but by itself would not result in non-fulfilment of condition of rule 42.
12. However, the matter does not rest with fulfilment of conditions of rule 42. Rule 42 itself envisages that it is subject to general conditions of rule 47. Rule 47 as can be noticed from the reading of rule restricts the claim of drawback, set-off or refund subject to two conditions, viz., (i) assessee is a dealer registered under the Act or under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 at the time of purchase of such goods; and (ii) he is "liable to pay tax" on the sale or resale of goods so purchased or on the sale of goods in the manufacture of which goods so purchased are used, except where the assessee is entitled to refund under rule 45 on sales of such goods.
13. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that the expression assessee is "liable to pay tax" has no reference to the assessee's actual liability to pay tax. But it relates to a status whether ex hypothesi liability to tax under the charging section of the Sales Tax Act had arisen. Whether ultimately as a result of exemption under the notification assessee is not actually made liable to pay tax is of little consequence. Exemption by itself inheres that transaction in its origin is taxable and dealer is liable to pay tax in respect of such goods. He urges that when Constitution (46th Amendment) Act was brought into force, the transaction of supplies of food material and drinks to its customers by the hotelier or restaurant fall within the definition of sale and became liable to tax. As the transaction became liable to pay tax assessee too became liable to pay tax in respect thereof. The fact because of exemption ultimately assessee was not made to pay tax does not take the case out of purview of expression "a dealer liable to pay tax on the sale of goods manufactured by him".
14. It was also urged that the words "liable to pay tax" in rule 47(1)(A) must be construed in the light of explanation to sub-rule (1)(A) which provides. that if any such purchases of goods are covered by proviso to sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of section 3 of the Act, no drawback, set-off or refund shall be allowed under these Rules in respect of such purchases. On the premise of this explanation it is urged that dealer's liability to pay tax must be directly referable to its liability to pay tax under the main provision of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) of section 3 and his "non-liability to pay tax" must be restricted to proviso to sub-sections (1), (2), (3) of section 3. No other provision for that matter needs to be looked at.
15. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the opinion prima facie agreeing with the assessee's contention that "liable to pay tax" to mean liability arising from the charging section, and not to its ultimate subjecting to tax, that liability never arose in the case of assessee in respect of cooked food supplied as service by the assessee during the period in question.
16. To begin with, when assessee has transacted supply of manufactured goods in question during the period in question as per law declared by the apex Court it did not even fall within the scope of sale so as to attract liability to pay tax with reference to charging section, that is to say, as per the state of law as it existed when transaction actually took place, the assessee though he was a registered dealer was not liable to pay tax in respect of goods manufactured by him and supplied to its customers, as part of service. He did not collect any tax on such supplies on that ground. About this there is no issue.
17. The question then arises did he become liable to pay tax as a result of coming into force of the Act of 1982. The Act by itself is not retrospective in its entirety nor it levies any tax as such. Section 4 provides for insertion of a new clause (29A) in article 366 defining expression. "a tax on sale or purchase of goods", to include various nature of transactions including the one, in question, namely, supply by way of or as part of any service of goods being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink where such supply or service is for consideration. This was necessitated because such supplies were held to be service and not sale. For levy of tax on sales or purchases of goods under entry 54 of State List or entry 92A of Union List the subject of tax could only be a "sale". Thus the transaction like one in question fell outside the purview of levy on "sales or purchase of goods". To overcome this, the expression, "tax on sale or purchase" as used in Constitution, was defined by inserting sub-clause (29A) in article 366 of the Constitution by Act of 1,982. Section 6 provides for validation and exemption as a result of change in definition of term, "a tax on sale or purchase of goods". In the first instance, it declares that for the purpose of every provision of the Constitution, in which the expression occurs, and for the purposes of any law passed or made or purported to have been made or passed before the commencement of the Act in pursuance of any such provision, the said expression shall be deemed to include and shall be deemed always to have included a tax on the supply by way of or as part of any service of goods being food or any other article for human consumption for consideration. It also declares every such transaction to be deemed to be a transaction by way of sale, with respect to which the person making such supply is the seller, and the person to whom such supply is made is deemed to be purchaser. This declaration is followed with validation of tax levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected under any such law 'in which such definition is deemed to have always been part of expression, "a tax on sale or purchase of goods". It also prohibited any proceeding to claim refund of such levy and collection made under the then existing law, and permits recoveries in accordance with such provisions. Simultaneously, with non obstante sub-section (2) it effaced the effect of sub-section (1) in respect of such transactions which are governed by sub-section (2), namely, where on such supply, no tax has been collected between the specified dates under clauses (a) and (b) respectively on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected at that time, by declaring the same to be exempt. Sub-section (3) provides that no person is prevented from questioning in accordance with the provisions of law under which such tax is levied and collected the assessment, reassessment, levy, or collection of such tax and for claiming refund of such tax which has been paid by him in excess of the amount due from him under that law, and it also saves every person from the consequence of any act or omission on the part of an assessee in respect of such transactions which has taken place before the commencement of the Act, that is to say, penal consequences were not to follow in respect of non-compliance or non-payment of tax in respect of the period and in respect of transaction for which the assessee became liable to pay tax, on commencement of Act of 1982. A reading of these provisions in entirety leave no room of doubt that it is one whole scheme and no part can be read in isolation. In the first instance, before validating the levy and collection, which had taken place under the existing law, the legislation has stepped in to provide foundation for validating such Acts, namely, by giving extended meaning to "sale" and making the operation of definition retrospective for the purpose of such validation. By providing foundation for validating the transaction which otherwise were not in accordance with law, it declared that the aforesaid taxes levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected under such law before commencement of this Act shall be deemed always to have been done in accordance with law.. At the same time, considering the background in which this law was being enacted, and considering the fact that people must have acted in accordance with the existing law as declared by the apex Court during the intervening period, it also declared notwithstanding retrospective operation of the definition clause and validation of all "Acts of levy" and collection and laying prescription against refunds of such collection of taxes did not think it proper to bring within the sweep of sub-section (1) those transactions which had taken effect without collection of tax on the basis of prevalent position of law. It cannot be assumed that Parliament makes any provision which is not required to be made. The fact that Parliament considered it necessary to make detailed validating provision notwithstanding giving the definition of "tax on sale" retrospective effect, and exempted certain sales from liability, is clear pointer to the fact that legislation has given restrictive retrospectivity to the provision in the matter of creating tax liability retrospectively. Had it been not part of one whole comprehensive scheme levy of tax during the period prior to commencement of Act of 1982 would have become justified notwithstanding law declared by Supreme Court as foundation of such judgment will be deemed to have removed on making the provision retrospective. We are of the view that read as a whole section 6 lays bare extent to which law has been given retrospective effect for creating liability under it and extent to which transactions prior to commencement of Act of 1982 were kept out of its effect. That is also apparent from the fact that in case of restaurant or eating house, the period which has been excluded from operation of validating clause by dint of non obstante clause commences with effect from the date of decision of apex Court relating to declaration of law in respect of restaurant and eating house in Northern India Caterer's case [1978] 42 STC 386 (SC); AIR 1978 SC 1591 and ending with the commencement of the Act. Under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) other such transactions were excluded from tax liability which fell between January 4, 1972 the date of decision of apex Court in Associated Hotels case [1972] 29 STC 474; AIR 1972 SC 1131. Sub-clause (3) makes it clear that so soon the provision of existing law about levy and collection was attracted, the assessments and levy had to be made in accordance with law and were to subject to those laws and the refund, if any, claimed of an excess amount paid, because of the operation of the Act of 1982 was also permitted to take place.
18. Therefore, to the extent the transactions were kept out of the purview of incidence of tax despite retrospectivity of amended and validation of levy of tax prior to commencement of the Act of 1982, assessee was never subjected to tax liability, and the assessee never became liable to pay tax in respect of sale of cooked food as were supplied by it to its customers by way of service and tax were not collected thereon, either under the existing law or under the Act of 1982. When liability to pay tax arose not under charging section, when the taxing event took place, but that liability is deemed to arise due to retrospective operation of law brought into effect subsequently, that liability cannot be deemed to be more than what has been envisaged under provisions relating to retrospectivity.
19. We are not impressed by the contention that explanation appended to sub-rule (1)(A) of rule 47 controls in any manner the meaning of sub-rule (1)(A). Explanation merely makes it clear that where a dealer is not liable to pay tax because of any of the proviso to sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 3, he shall not be entitled to drawback, set-off or refund. A look at section 3 and its sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) will show that while main provision declares when a dealer becomes liable to pay tax on exceeding a limit of turnover, proviso declares that turnover below that minimum limit is not liable to pay tax, not-withstanding that goods and event are both taxable. That is further indicative of the fact that unless a dealer is at all liable to pay tax, notwithstanding that event is taxable as suggested by learned counsel for the assessee, where dealer is not liable to pay tax, he is not entitled to benefit of drawback, set-off or refund.
20. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that assessee was not a dealer who was liable to pay tax on sale of cooked food as supplies to its customers for the period in question within the meaning of rule 47(1)(A) of the Gujarat gales Tax Rules and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim drawback, set-off or refund of tax paid on purchase made of raw material or consumable stores. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, that is to say, in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Reference answered in affirmative.