2008 (4) TMI 485 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liability to pay purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 Whether the mentioned process amounts to consumption/use of red oil in the manufacture of sandalwood oil as contended on behalf of the respondent- department? Held that - Appeal allowed. As in tax matters courts have to keep in mind distinction between approach and principle. Courts have to go by the principle involved in the fiscal legislation. Keeping in mind the distinction between these two concepts, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in making the observation which is underlying hereinabove. The decision of the Tribunal is objective. It is based on the correct formulation of the test of irreversibility involved in the process of manufacture and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in observing that the finding of the Tribunal was patently absurd and perverse.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay "purchase tax" under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Whether the conversion of red oil into sandalwood oil constitutes "manufacture" under section 5A.
3. Interpretation of the term "consumption" in the context of section 5A.
4. Applicability of the "test of irreversibility" to determine manufacture.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay "Purchase Tax" under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
The primary issue was whether the appellant-assessee was liable to pay purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for converting red oil into sandalwood oil. The department argued that this conversion constituted a manufacturing process, thus attracting purchase tax.

2. Whether the Conversion of Red Oil into Sandalwood Oil Constitutes "Manufacture" under Section 5A
The appellant-assessee contended that the removal of impurities from red oil to produce sandalwood oil did not constitute "manufacture" as per section 5A. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the basic structure and composition of red oil remained unchanged after the purification process, and therefore, it should not be treated as a separate and distinct commodity from sandalwood oil. The counsel cited several judgments to support the claim that purification does not equate to manufacturing.

Conversely, the department's counsel maintained that red oil and sandalwood oil are distinct commodities, with red oil having no market value due to impurities. The department argued that the conversion process added value, making the final product (sandalwood oil) marketable, thus qualifying as "manufacture" under section 5A.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Consumption" in the Context of Section 5A
The court examined whether the process of converting red oil into sandalwood oil amounted to "consumption" or "use" in the manufacture of another product as per section 5A(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal had previously concluded that the conversion process was reversible, meaning sandalwood oil could revert to red oil by adding impurities. Therefore, red oil was not "consumed" in the manufacture of sandalwood oil.

The court referenced the case of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, where it was held that the hydrogenation process did not change the essential nature of groundnut oil, hence it was not considered "manufacture." Similarly, the court concluded that the purification process did not transform red oil into a new product but merely removed impurities.

4. Applicability of the "Test of Irreversibility" to Determine Manufacture
The court emphasized the "test of irreversibility" as a critical criterion to determine whether a process constitutes manufacturing. The Tribunal had found that the process of converting red oil to sandalwood oil was reversible. Therefore, red oil was not subsumed into sandalwood oil, failing the test of irreversibility. The court held that the Tribunal's conclusion was objective and based on a correct formulation of the test of irreversibility.

The court also discussed the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. B. Raghurama Shetty, where it was held that paddy and rice were distinct commodities, and the process of converting paddy to rice constituted consumption. However, the court found this judgment inapplicable to the present case, as red oil and sandalwood oil were not distinct commodities.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court found merit in the civil appeal filed by the assessee, concluding that the process of converting red oil into sandalwood oil did not amount to "manufacture" under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the High Court had erred in its interpretation. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →