1967 (5) TMI 55 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the sales made by the assessee were assessable to tax under section 2(h), Explanation II(ii) of the U.P. Sale Tax Act, 1948? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The word manufacture has various shades of meaning, and in the context of sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" in the context of sales tax legislation.
2. Determination of whether the goods produced by the assessee constitute manufactured goods for the purpose of taxation under the U.P. Sale Tax Act, 1948.

Detailed Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a reference made under section 11 of the U.P. Sale Tax Act, 1948. The primary issue was whether the sales made by the assessee, who dealt in pig bristles, were assessable to tax under section 2(h), Explanation II(ii) of the Act. The assessee contended that the sales made at London were not taxable as the bristles were not manufactured goods within the statutory definition. The Court examined the process undertaken by the assessee, which involved boiling, washing, sorting, and bundling pig bristles before dispatching them for sale. The key legal provision in question was section 2(h) of the Act, defining "sale" and providing explanations regarding the place of sale for tax purposes.

The High Court held that the assessee was not a manufacturer as the process applied did not result in the production of a commercially different article. The Chief Justice observed that the cleaning and sorting of bristles did not transform them into a new product, as the end result remained bristles. The Court distinguished previous cases cited by the appellant where the essence of manufacture involved transforming one object into another for marketability. It was emphasized that no new articles were produced by the assessee, and the goods remained bristles throughout the process. The Court also referred to a case regarding the printing and dyeing of textiles, where the definition of "manufacture" was discussed in the context of sales tax legislation.

The Supreme Court analyzed the term "manufacture" in the context of sales tax laws, noting that the word had various meanings. It was established that if goods, upon which labor is applied, retained their essential commercial identity, they could not be considered the result of manufacture for tax purposes. The Court referred to a recent case where the process of transforming raw materials into a different article was considered manufacturing. Additionally, the Court cited examples involving the production of oil from seeds and the conversion of scrap iron into rolled steel to illustrate processes that constituted manufacture due to the significant transformation of the raw materials into new marketable commodities.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the sales made by the assessee were not assessable to tax as manufactured goods under the U.P. Sale Tax Act, 1948. The Court's analysis focused on the lack of substantial transformation in the goods produced by the assessee, emphasizing that the final product remained essentially the same commercial article. The judgment clarified the interpretation of "manufacture" in the context of sales tax legislation and provided insights into the threshold for considering goods as manufactured for taxation purposes.