Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It may be mentioned that at the conclusion of lengthy hearing of the petitions, the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents have placed before the Court detailed written submissions for consideration. This Court has, therefore, condensed the lengthy written submissions as precisely as possible to see that the judgment is not unnecessarily burdened. They are as under:

8. Mr. Mihir J. Thakore, learned Senior Advocate, with Messrs Bijal Chhatrapati, Gaurav Mathur, A.M. Hava, learned advocates for Singhi & Co. for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11809 of 2006 and other petitions, Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12103 of 2006 and cognate matters, and Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate for Nanavati Associates for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 12033 and 12034 of 2006, contended that the entries granting exemption have been interpreted since 1987 to include fuel used as raw material and, therefore, the circular of 2005 is liable to be set aside. According to the learned Counsels for the petitioners, the fuel used by the petitioner is either raw material or processing material or consumable store and, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to the Page 0932 benefit of Entry 175 of the Notification issued under Section 49(2) of the Act. It was asserted that the manufacturing process undertaken by the petitioners consists of receiving raw materials in bulk quantities, which are conveyed to the furnace where the same are heated with natural gas so as to manufacture the final products, and as the natural gas purchased by the petitioners from GAIL against the relevant form at concessional rate of Sales Tax is used directly in the manufacturing process, the same would fall squarely within the four corners of Entry No. 175. According to the learned Counsels for the petitioners for interpreting the expression 'goods required by him as raw or processing material or consumable stores in the manufacture of taxable goods', the doctrine of noscitur a sociis will have no application because meaning of raw material, processing material and consumable stores is clear and unambiguous. It was emphasised by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that the words 'raw material', 'processing material' and 'consumable stores' are not used in the same sense but are distinct categories of goods and, therefore, the principle of noscitur a sociis would not be applicable while interpreting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Explaining that the word 'consumable stores' is a composite word, it was pleaded that it must be construed as such and not as two individual words nor the word 'consumable stores' be equated with the word 'consumables' which is generic in nature. Referring to common parlance meaning of the word 'consumable stores', it was argued that the consumable stores are synonymous with indirect material required to be used in the manufacturing process, e.g. fuel, lubricating oils, greases, etc. and, therefore, the said word should not be interpreted to mean as analogous to the word raw material. It was pointed out that the application of doctrine of noscitur a sociis while interpreting Section 15B of the Act or Entry 175(2) would render the words 'processing material' and 'consumable stores' redundant which should be avoided and the word 'consumable stores' should not be interpreted to mean that it is that material which gets used up or consumed or wasted in the final product. It was argued that by circular dated February 19, 2001, it was rightly clarified by the respondents that the exemption of sales tax on purchase of fuel under the Act would continue to be available to the petitioner and similarly situated industries even after the judgment in the matter of Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) because the provisions of the Act were materially different from those of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which were subject matter of consideration in Coastal Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, the circular dated September 2, 2005 challenged in the petitions is liable to be set aside. What was asserted on behalf of the petitioners was that a bare perusal of Section 5-B(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which was subject matter of consideration in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra), and Section 15B of the Act read with Entry 175(2) made under Section 49(2) of the Act makes it apparent that the concession and incentive provided under Section 15B as well as Entry 175(2) are materially different from the provisions of the A.P. Act and, therefore, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra), circular Page 0933 dated September 2, 2005 cancelling the benefits granted by circular dated February 19, 2001 could not have been issued. It was maintained that the words: "raw materials", "processing materials" or "consumable stores" used in Section 15B of the Act and Entry 175(2) are the words of wide import to convey every form of inputs including the Natural Gas used in the processing of manufactured goods and as the circular dated September 2, 2005 is contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court in J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Division Benches of this Court in (1) Vasuki Carborandum Works v. State of Gujarat 1979 (43) STC 294(2) K.Rasiklal & Co. v. State of Gujarat 1992 (86) STC 238 and (3) Saurashtra Cacline Bauxite & Allied Industries (supra), the circular dated September 2, 2005 should be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioners asserted that as the natural gas purchased by the petitioners is inextricably linked and used in the overall manufacturing process undertaken by the petitioners, e.g. the natural gas is used by the petitioners by directly feeding the same into the glass melting furnace for converting raw materials into molten glass in the process of manufacturing glass, the natural gas used should be treated as processing material, which would qualify for the benefits as provided under Entry 175 of the Act and, therefore, circular dated February 19, 2001 should be upheld by the Court whereas circular dated September 2, 2005 should be set aside. It was emphasized by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that in the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and the Rules, the term "consumable" is not used along with the terms like 'components parts" "sub-assembly parts" and "intermediate parts" as is the case in Section 5-B(1) of the A.P. General Sales Act, which was considered by the Supreme Court in Coastal Chemicals Ltd. (supra), and, therefore, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra), circular dated September 2, 2005 could not have been issued. What was highlighted on behalf of the petitioners was that the natural gas purchased by the petitioners at the concessional rates is part and parcel of the composite process of manufacturing the goods and is clearly a processing material and/or consumable stores as envisaged by the exemption notification and, therefore, the circular dated September 2, 2005 should be quashed. According to the learned Counsels for the petitioners, to deny the petitioners the exemption of sales tax on natural gas as they were availing for the last almost 12 years would tantamount to rewriting the terms and conditions of the scheme introduced by the respondents for granting higher benefits under the Incentive Policy for new industrial units without the consent of the petitioners and, therefore, also circular dated September 2, 2005 should be set aside. It was contended that Section 27 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Sales Tax whereas Section 49(2) of the Page 0934 Act empowers the State Government to grant exemption by notification and as the exemption is granted to the petitioners pursuant to the policy of the State Government, which was declared in the year 1986, as well as subsequently, the circular issued in the year 2005 should be set aside. It was argued that Entry 175(2) made under Section 49(2) of the Act is neither withdrawn nor annulled nor modified nor rescinded by the State Legislature and, therefore, circular issued in the year 2005 is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsels for the petitioners referred to the provisions of Section 62 of the Act and contended that it was determined by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 62 of the Act that the fuel is either raw-material or processing material or consumable store and, therefore, purchase tax was not payable and as the declaration made under Section 62 of the Act is binding on the respondents, the circular dated September 2, 2005 should be set aside. The learned Counsel emphasized that the word 'consumed' is not used as verb, but is used as a noun and, therefore, the fuel used by the petitioners for processing raw-material used in the manufacture of final products would qualify for exemption as provided in the relevant entry. The learned Counsel emphasized that in the cases of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Limited (supra) and Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra), the Supreme Court did not deal with the processing material at all, but interpreted the word "consumables" after considering the words that were neighbours to the said words and, therefore, the decision rendered in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) cannot be interpreted to mean that the fuel used by the petitioners is neither raw material nor processing material nor consumable store and would not earn benefit under the Exemption Entry. The learned Counsels referred to the definition of the word 'raw-material' as appearing in Section 2(19) of the VAT Act and contended that the fuel used by the petitioners should be treated as "raw-material" used for the purpose of manufacturing final product. In the alternative, it was argued that the respondent No. 2, i.e. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vechanvera Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, who was the author of the circular dated February 19, 2001, could not have issued circular dated September 2, 2005 in complete volte face cancelling the circular dated February 19, 2001 from its original date, i.e. February 19, 2001, and holding that the judgment in the matter of Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra), would be applicable to the provisions of the Gujarat Act inasmuch as it is not open to the respondents to seek to recover sales tax liability retrospectively more particularly when such liability was imposed/ enhanced due to change in interpretation of law and the petitioners could not collect tax from their customers. It was contended by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that on the basis of solemn representation made by the respondents by Page 0935 way of notification dated June 25, 1987, the petitioners had invested huge sums of money and not recovered the tax from their customers and, therefore, in view of the principles of promissory estoppel, the respondents are precluded from recovering the tax retrospectively. What was asserted was that the scheme introduced by the Government as well as Entry 175(2) held out a promise and assurance of levy of the taxes at the concessional rate of 0.25% on all inputs including fuel, which was reaffirmed in the context of fuel by circular dated February 19, 2001 and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is estopped from taking up a position to the contrary by issuing circular dated September 2, 2005 and recovering the tax retrospectively. According to the learned Counsels for the petitioners, it is not open to the respondents to apply the decision in the matter of Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) to interpret the provisions of the Incentive Scheme by way of which sales tax incentives have been granted to the petitioners since the said scheme was a specially designed package, distinct from the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act in order to invite investment in the State of Gujarat and in view of the clear representation made by the State that all inputs including fuel would enjoy the benefit of concessional rate of sales tax, the respondents are estopped from contending that the fuel purchased by the petitioners would be liable to sales tax at the full rate as prescribed by the provisions of the Act. It was argued that the issuance of circular dated September 2, 2005 is totally illegal and, therefore, the reliefs claimed in the petitions should be granted. In support of these contentions, the learned Counsels relied upon the decisions in (1) Vasuki Carborundum Works v. The State of Gujarat 43 STC 294; (2) Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. Quilon ; (3) K.Rasiklal & Co. v. State of Gujarat STR 3 of 1984, 1992 (86) STC 238; (4) J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Anr. 1965(16) STC 563; (5) Pournami Oil Mills and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1986 (Supp) SCC 728; (6) Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 77 STC 282; (7) Filterco and Anr. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ; (8) Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of U.P. and Anr. ; Page 0936 (9) Ghowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ; (10) Standard Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai ; (11) Judgment rendered by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad on September 28, 2004 in Second Appeal No. 682 of 2003 which was filed by Pandesara Industries Ltd. against State of Gujarat; (12) Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar 1991 Supp (1) SCC 125; (13) State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders and Ors. ; (14) Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. Venkata-Raypurama 1989 Supp (1) SCC 144; (15) Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. ; (16) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises ; (17) Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association ; (18) Mercury Pharmaceuticals Industries v. The State of Gujarat 43 STC 301; (19) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vadilal Dairy Frozen Food Industries (2006) 146 STC 9 (Guj); (20) Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and Allied Industries v. State of Gujarat 1993 (91) STC 435; (21) Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Assessing Authority and Ors. ; (22) State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. ; (23) State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Anr. ; (24) West Bengal Page 0937 Hosiery Association and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 134; (25) British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. ; (26) Shree Cement Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajashtan and Ors. ; (27) Indian Aluminum Co.Ltd. and Anr. v. Karnataka Electricity Board and Ors. ; (28) Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan ; (29) Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad ; (30) Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle D, Jaipur, v. Rajasthan Electricity Board (1997) 104 STC 89; (31) Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur v. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd. (2007) 5 VST 529 (SC); (32) State of Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. ; (33) Sonebhadra Fuel v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow ; (34) Lokmat Newpapers Pvt.Ltd. v. Shankarprasad ; (35) Rainbow Steels Ltd. Muzaffarnagar & Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Delhi v. C.S.T., U.P. & State of U.P. ; (36) Shriram Vinyl & Chemical Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai ; (37) Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Ors. ; (38) State of A.P. v. V.C.Subbarayudu and Ors. ; (39) Sales Tax Page 0938 Reference No. 2 of 2003 decided on October 13, 2006 rendered by the Division Bench comprising R.S.Garg & D.H.Waghela, JJ.; (40) Ardeec Engineering (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 117 STC 178; as well as on (a) Interpretation of Statutes & Written Instruments; (b) Statutory Interpretation A Code, 3rd Edition, F A R Bennion MA (Oxon), Barrister, Butterworths; (c) Accounting Standard & Corporate Accounting Practice.