State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000]120STC493(TRIBUNAL)
JUDGMENT
J. Kanakaraj, J. (Chairman)
1. This tax revision case came before a division Bench of the Special Tribunal and has been referred to a Full Bench because of the points involved in the case and certain apparent conflict in decisions.
2. The petitioner/assessee is a dealer in "I.V," fluids and for the year 1986-87 they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 15,75,129.11. On verification of the accounts it was found that the gross profit was about 32.62 per cent which was very high in the trade. They had not also maintained production-cum-stock account for the manufacture of medicines. The dealers had purchased empty bottles from unregistered dealers and used them in the manufacture of medicines for sales. In view of the above defects and circumstances the assessing authority proposed to reject the accounts as incorrect and incomplete. He added 1 per cent for defects to the sales turnover of harmless medicines and multi-point goods. He brought to tax the purchase turnover of empty bottles at 10 per cent under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. He thus arrived at a total turnover of Rs. 17,11,408.55. There being no exempted turnover the total was also shown as Rs. 17,11,408.55. Surcharge and additional sales tax were also levied. The dealers objected to the proposals stating that there was no warrant for addition of 1 per cent for defects. Secondly, they contended that the levy of purchase tax was illegal. The assessing authority overruled the objection and passed an order of assessment, as proposed on April 29, 1988.
3. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the 1 per cent addition for defects to a round sum of Rs. 5,000 taxable at 8 per cent and Rs. 100 taxable at 5 per cent. The next major issue taken for consideration by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner related to a turnover of Rs. 1,20,528 brought to tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act at 10 per cent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the empty bottles were bought from unregistered dealers and used for packing the fluids and are liable to tax under Section 7-A(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. According to him the lack of information about the sellers of empty bottles satisfied the condition "existence of circumstances in which no tax was payable". The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also reduced the turnover from Rs. 1,20,528 to Rs. 50,701, as per figures available in the reply to the notice, which only amounted to Rs. 50,701. However, on the question of rate of tax the matter was remanded to the assessing officer to find out whether sales to Government department were involved, entitling to concessional rate for the assessee.
4. A second appeal was preferred to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is necessary to notice the grounds of appeal for dealing with some of the arguments advanced before us. Apart from questioning the addition made on account of defects, the main attack was against the levy of purchase tax in relation to empty bottles. Ground number 4 contains the following grievance :
"The glass bottles are merely employed as container in packing the fluids and sold and delivered charging the price which includes cost of containers. In other words, the containers are also subject-matter of resale. The containers are not delivered free at the time of sale."
5. In ground number 5, reference is made to the introduction of subsection (7) to Section 3 by the Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1986 with effect from July 4, 1986 and it is stated :
"Hence, empty glass bottles were subject to tax under Section 3, subsection (7) when sold along with the contents. Once the goods are subject to tax, under Section 3, 4 or 5, then there is no question of levying purchase tax under Section 7-A."
6. They also questioned the opinion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that using bottles for packing, is a kind of disposal given to the bottles and therefore Section 7-A(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is attracted. Says the assessee that the identity of the bottles were never lost and "disposed of" will mean the transfer of proprietary right in the bottle. By judgment dated March 9, 1994 in T.A. No. 507 of 1992 the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal framed the following questions for decision :
"(i) Whether there were grounds for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to sustain an addition of Rs. 5,100 on the taxable turnover ?
(ii) Whether bottles purchased by the appellants from unregistered dealers can be said to have been consumed or used in the manufacture of medicines, drugs and syrups ?"
They confirm the addition of Rs. 5,100 as determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the second question framed by them they observed as follows with reference to Sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 :
"Merely because Sub-section (7) of Section 3 provides for levy of tax on the value of packing materials where the goods are sold together with the packing materials, it cannot be said that tax under Section 7-A cannot be levied."
7. They, then referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1986] 63 STC 316 and refused to follow the ratio of the judgment because of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1965] 16 STC 563. These two decisions relate to the question whether the empty bottles were used or consumed in the manufacture of medicines, drugs, syrups, etc. Purporting to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1965] 16 STC 563 the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held as follows :
"We hold that the bottles purchased from unregistered dealers and 'used' in the packing process, which is integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and without which the activity of manufacturing of I.V. fluids may be commercially inexpedient, are liable to tax under Section 7-A of the Act from January 1, 1987."
8. They however remanded the case back to the assessing officer only for the purpose of assessing the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased with effect from January 1, 1987.
9. The assessee aggrieved by the above decision of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the issue of purchase tax has filed this revision. Mr. N. Inbarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, projects the case of the assessee under two important issues :
(1) The empty bottles are not used in the manufacture of I.V. fluid and therefore sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A{l) does not apply.
(2) Even the preamble portion of Section 7-A(1) is not satisfied because "no circumstances" have been brought to the notice of the court in which "no tax is payable under Section 3, 4 or 5" in respect of the goods purchased (empty bottles). On the other hand, says the learned counsel that subsection (7) of Section 3 specifically provides for levying of tax on containers or packing materials at the same rate as applicable to the goods themselves.
10. The learned counsel for the State, Mr. R. Mahadevan, refutes the above arguments by saying that without the bottles the I.V. fluid cannot be manufactured and that the empty bottles never suffered tax at any earlier stage. Therefore, according to him, the levy of tax under Section 7-A on the turnover of empty bottles was perfectly just and legal.
11. Both sides have cited several decisions in support of their stand. We will take up the second point argued by Mr. N. Inbarajan, for consideration before going to the first point argued by him. In other words, we will first consider the question whether the condition "in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be" is satisfied enabling the authority to invoke Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The first and foremost decision on the scope of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [1975] 36 STC 191. The Supreme Court was reversing a judgment of the Madras High Court which held that the language of Section 7-A is far from clear as to its intention. According to the Madras High Court the words "goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under the Act" and the words "in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 3, 4 or 5 as the case may be" are mutually contradictory in terms. The Supreme Court of India held that the Madras High Court had mixed up certain well-known concepts in sales tax law and proceeded to analyse Section 7-A word by word. The Supreme Court observed :
"On analysis, Sub-section (1) breaks up into these ingredients :
(1) The person who purchases the goods is a dealer ;
(2) The purchase is made by him in the course of his business ;
(3) Such purchase is either from 'a registered dealer or from any other person' ;
(4) The goods purchased are 'goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act' ;
(5) Such purchase is 'in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be' ; and (6) The dealer either--
(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, or
(b) despatches all such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or
(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce."
12. The Supreme Court further emphasised that Section 7-A(l) can be invoked, if all the above ingredients are cumulatively satisfied. They, then proceeded to examine ingredients (4) and (5) in greater detail. They observed :
"Ingredients (4) and (5) in Section 7-A(1) are not mutually exclusive and the existence of one does not necessarily negate the other. Both can co-exist and in harmony. Ingredient (4) would be satisfied if it is shown that the particular goods were 'taxable goods', i.e., the goods, the sale or purchase of which is generally taxable under the Act. Notwithstanding the goods being 'taxable goods', there may be circumstances in a given case, by reason of which the particular sale or purchase does not attract tax under Section 3, 4 or 5. Section 7-A provides for such a situation and makes the purchase of such goods taxable in the hands of the purchasing dealer on his purchase turnover if any of the conditions (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A is satisfied."
13. They have reiterated the circumstances in which the ingredient number (5) will be satisfied even though the goods are taxable under the Act. If we now examine the facts of the present case, Sub-section (7) of Section 3 makes it very clear that the empty bottles purchased by the assessee cannot escape taxation under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 when the manufactured goods are sold. Therefore, the assessee contends that once the goods are subject to tax under Section 3, 4 or 5 then there is no question of purchase tax under Section 7-A. The Appellate Tribunal has in one sentence negatived this contention and we have already quoted the said sentence. No court can render a finding without giving reasons. We cannot therefore, accept the said findings of the Appellate Tribunal. But we have to refer to certain decisions brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate.
14. If we are to accept the above contention of the assessee, there is yet one more hurdle which presents itself before us. The 5th ingredient pointed out by the Supreme Court specifically begins with the words "such purchase", meaning that we have to examine the circumstances in which tax is payable or not payable at the time of purchase of the goods by the dealer. In other words, the question is whether the selling dealers are liable to tax. The fact that after the purchase the assessee is made liable to pay tax on the empty bottles along with the goods would not alter the situation. This is made clear by the said judgment of the Supreme Court itself, when they observed at the end of the judgment :
"In our opinion, the Kerala High Court has correctly construed Section 5A of the Kerala Act which is in pari materia with the impugned Section 7-A of the Madras Act. 'Goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act' in Section 7-A(1) means 'taxable goods', that is, the kind of goods, the sale of which by a particular person or dealer may not be taxable in the hands of the seller but the purchase of the same by a dealer in the course of his business may subsequently become taxable. We have pointed out and it needs to be emphasised again that Section 7-A itself is a charging section. It creates a liability against a dealer on his purchase turnover with regard to goods, the sale or purchase of which though generally liable to tax under the Act have not, due to the circumstances of particular sales, suffered tax under Section 3, 4 or 5, and which after the purchase, have been dealt by him in any of the modes indicated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 7-A(1)."
15. The only manner in which we can understand the judgment of the Supreme Court is, as already noticed by us, namely, that the 5th ingredient would not come into play only after the purchase of the goods by the assessee and should have to be satisfied at the purchase point by the assessee. There is one more reason why this above interpretation is acceptable to us. It is contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in [1998] 108 STC 598 (Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala). That judgment interprets the provision similar to Section 3(7) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In holding that the packing materials or the containers shall be assessed at the same rate as the goods for which the packing materials or containers used, the Supreme Court observed :
"Moreover, the packing materials as such are not being taxed under Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. The subject-matter of tax are the goods packed in the containers. In calculating the turnover of the goods, packing materials will have to be taken into account. The packing materials will be taxed at the same rate and at the same point as the goods contained in the packing material. This is because the goods are sold packed in containers and are charged accordingly. This is a rule of computation of the turnover of the goods. If no ax is ultimately found leviable on the goods then no tax can be levied on the containers in which the goods are contained."
(Emphasis supplied).
Therefore, what is taxed under Section 3(7) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is the goods themselves and not the containers. It is only made clear that the containers form part of the goods. In this case there is no difficulty in holding that the I.V, fluids manufactured by the appellants are only subjected to tax under Section 3(7) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and since there is no I.V. fluid without the containers. Section 3(7) imposes the duty payable on the goods as the duty payable on the containers also. We are therefore, of the opinion that the above interpretation can only provide a harmonious understanding of ingredient number (5) mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment in [1975] 36 STC 191 (State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami) as well as Section 3(7) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as interpreted by [1998] 108 STC 598 (SO (Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala). In this view of the matter the second contention of the appellant that one of the important ingredients of Section 7-A is not satisfied cannot be accepted. It is not disputed before us that at the time of purchase of the empty bottles by the assessee, no tax was payable. The second point urged by Mr. N. Inbarajan, therefore, fails and is rejected.
17. We will now take up the first contention which relates to the 6th ingredient of Section 7-A as pointed out in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami [1975] 36 STC 191 (SC). The 6th ingredient relates to the goods being made unavailable for taxation owing to the act of the dealer in doing any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In this case, the assessing authority and the Second Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are consumed in the manufacture of other goods as contemplated in sub-clause (a). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner struck a different note by holding that the assessee had disposed of or made empty bottles vanish by filling the I.V. fluids in the empty bottles. According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it need not be case of transferring proprietary rights over the goods and therefore using the empty bottles in packing I.V. fluids would fall under Section 7-A(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Straightaway we can reject the finding of the first appellate authority (Appellate Assistant Commissioner) because it was held by the Supreme Court of India in [1990] 76 STC 71 (Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana), [Gedore (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc. cases] that the word "disposal" means transfer of title in the goods to any other person. Therefore, we are left with the question of sub-clause (a) and whether assessee had consumed or used the empty bottles in the manufacture of other goods ("I.V. fluids").
18. Mr. N. Inbarajan, argues that sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A(l) had undergone several changes on account of decision of courts. With effect from January 1, 1987 the word "used" had been included in sub-clause (a).
19. This was apparently to get over a decision of the Madras High Court in [1981] 47 STC 30 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co.) which laid down that the word "consumes" contemplates that the goods purchased should have been devoured or exhausted in the process of manufacture of other goods. They also laid down that the identity of the goods purchased should have been completely lost. With effect from November 6, 1997, by Act 60 of 1997 the said sub-clause (a) underwent a further change when the words "consume or use such goods in or for the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise" was substituted for the expression "consumes" or uses such goods in the manufacture of other goods for "sale or otherwise". Therefore from January 8, 1987 we have to find out whether the word "use" makes any difference regarding the interpretation of sub-clause (a) as distinct from the interpretation placed by the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30. Lastly, we have to also bear in mind whether the amendment made in Act 60 of 1997 by introducing the words "in or for" for the manufacture of other goods, would help us in understanding the issue.
20. When the word "consumes" was alone available, there was a judgment of the Madras High Court on identical facts, namely [1986] 63 STC 316 (Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu) which judgment is strongly relied upon by Mr. N. Inbarajan, because the judgment used in more than one place the word "uses" also. In that case the assessee was manufacturing drugs and syrups. He had also purchased empty bottles and dealwood cases for packing the medicines. This was treated as consumption by the lower authorities. The Madras High Court relying on [1981] 47 STC 30 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co.) observes :
"Here, the identity between the original commodity and the end-product is intact even after the bottles are filled up with drug or the syrup manufactured by the assessee and even after the consumption of the drug or the syrup the bottles continue to have their own identity. 'On the facts of this case, the bottles can never be said to have been used or consumed in the manufacture of medicines, drugs or syrups, as the bottles do not play any part in the manufacturing process either as raw material or otherwise'."
21. That decision is also authority for the proposition that Section 7-A(1)(b) will not come into play.
22. We have considered the above argument of Mr. N. Inbarajan, with great anxiety and care. We are clearly of the opinion that we cannot attribute to the learned judges an interpretation of Sub-section (a) of Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood after January 1, 1987 when they were delivering a judgment on January 18, 1984 in relation to an assessment of the year 1975-76. Such an understanding of the judgment would not be fair even to the learned Judges. This is because the word "uses" was introduced in sub-clause (a) only because of the judgment of the Madras High Court especially in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30 (Mad.). Therefore, we must hold that the Legislature had intended to erase the idea of the identity of the goods being lost while the purchased goods are used in the manufacture of other goods. We must equally hold that the Legislature intended to dilute the words devoured or exhausted used in the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30. These aspects were not at all dealt with by the Madras High Court in [1986] 63 STC 316 (Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu), strongly relied upon by Mr. N. Inbarajan. If we attribute to the Legislature an intention to dilute the strict interpretation placed by the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30 on the word "consumes", we should necessarily give an expanded meaning or a different meaning to the word "consumes" or "uses" in the manufacture. We have to forget about the purchased goods losing its identity in the manufacture of other goods. All that we have to see is whether the ultimate product, namely, I.V. fluids could be brought into a marketable stage without the use of the empty bottles. So construed we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the empty bottles were used in the manufacture of I.V. fluids.
23. We will now advert to some more decisions which have a bearing on the relevant issues. In [1965] 16 STC 563 (SC) (J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur) is a case arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with reference to the certificate of registration granted under Section 7(1) of the said Act. Section 8 of the said Act prescribes the rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Sub-section (3) of the said section refers to a certificate of registration for purchasing goods as being intended for resale by him or for use by him "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining, or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power". Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 prescribes the goods referred to in Section 8(3)(b). It is with reference to the above provisions of law that the Supreme Court observes as follows:
"The expression 'in the manufacture of goods' should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, in our judgment, fall within the expression 'in the manufacture of goods'."
24. This judgment has been strongly relied upon by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for holding that the words "in the manufacture" would also take in the user of the empty bottles in the packing of I.V. fluids and the same is integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and therefore, sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is attracted. Mr. N. Inbarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the above judgment of the Supreme Court cannot at all be relied upon because it was rendered with reference to the words "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, etc." Further Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 elaborated the user of the goods in the processing of the machinery. There is no doubt, substance in the argument of Mr. N. Inbarajan, that this decision cannot be applied without reference to the relevant provisions of law. But the passage quoted by us would suggest that the manufacture of goods would include the processing of the goods to make the goods ordinarily marketable.
25. In [19771 39 STC 1 (SC) (Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala) a similar case arising under the CST Act with reference to the certificate of registration arose before the Supreme Court. The apex Court held that the cultivation and growth of tea-plants and leaves cannot be comprehended in the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale".
26. In [19901 77 STC 203 (SC) (Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd.) it was held that anything required to make the goods marketable, must form part of the manufacture and any raw material or any materials used for the same would be a component part of the end-product. In that case it was held that wrapping paper should be construed as raw materials because without such wrapping papers the goods involved, namely, paper and paper board cannot be made marketable without wrapping them in wrapping paper.
27. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the two decisions of the Madras High Court in [1980] 46 STC 400 and 401 [Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Vijaya Trading Company] and (State of Tamil Nadu v. Associated Sales of India). Both the said decisions were prior to the introduction of the word "uses" in sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. We have already pointed out that it is precisely to get over these decisions that the word "uses" was introduced in sub-clause (a). Reference was then made to [1988] 69 STC 320 [Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd.]. In that case, the dealer was dealing in tiles, terra-cotta wares and ceramics. He purchased cashew shells for using the same as fuel for manufacturing its products. They also purchased lime shells for maintaining their kiln in the factory. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and held that cashew shells had been used only as fuel and did not get transformed into the end-product and were not used as raw material in the manufacture of other goods. It has to be again pointed out that the Supreme Court was only interpreting the word consumption as contemplated in Section 5-A(l)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Narayana Oil Mills [1996] 100 STC 358 (Mad.) was referred to for the purpose of emphasizing that the value of containers, namely, gunny bags when equal to half value of the contents and there was no proof that the value of gunny bags was included in the sale price of oil cakes, the Madras High Court held that the inference was legitimate that there was an implied sale of gunny bags and the purchase turnover of gunny bags was liable to be brought to tax. They rejected the contention of the assessee that there was no sale of the container. That was a case where the revenue sought to bring the transaction under sub-clause (c) of Section 7-A(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
28. None of the above decisions dealt with the point as it is presented before us and on the basis of the provisions of law as are applicable to the facts of the case. By way of completion we refer to Srinivasan on the commentary on Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act with particular reference to Section 7-A and the sale of packing materials along with the goods. There is a reference to [1991] 82 STC 390 (A. V. Ponniah & Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu) where the Madras High Court held that the sale of snuff sold in packed form, the price of packing materials had been included in the price of snuff, and therefore, purchase tax under Section 7-A was not attracted because sub-clause (b) was not attracted. Even this case does not touch the point that is raised before us, namely, whether Section 3(7) would prevent the levy of tax on the purchase of empty bottles. It has to be remembered that Section 3(7) was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1984 with effect from May 22, 1984. We have already pointed out that Section 3(7) only ensures the levy of tax on the containers or packing materials at the same rate at which the goods themselves are sold because the subject-matter of levy was the contents which formed part of the containers. In fact, the Supreme Court in Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala [19981 108 STC 598 has made it clear that Section 3(7) is a levy on the goods themselves and not on the containers. According to the Supreme Court, the containers being part of the goods, without which the goods cannot be marketed, both the articles attract the same duty. This being the position, the purchase of empty bottles cannot be allowed to escape tax at the purchase point, merely because the seller of empty bottles are not liable to pay tax on the sale. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation in holding that purchase tax under Section 7-A is attracted in this case, notwithstanding the fact that Section 3(7) imposes a tax on the sale of the I.V. fluid which cannot be sold without the containers and therefore the containers are also subjected to tax at the sale point. We have also held that sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A(l) is satisfied in this case and therefore, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct, though for different reasons. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly pointed out that tax under Section 7-A will get attracted only from January 1, 1987 when the word "uses" was introduced in sub-clause (a) of Section 7-A(l) of the Act. In fine, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is confirmed and the tax revision case is dismissed.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 8th day of September, 1999.