1972 (12) TMI 67 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of cultivation and crop protection items in the Central Sales Tax registration certificate.
2. Interpretation of Section 8(1) and 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Applicability of Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.
4. Comparison of judicial precedents from the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court.
5. Examination of relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Cultivation and Crop Protection Items in the Central Sales Tax Registration Certificate:
The primary issue in this case is whether items such as garden implements, irrigation equipment, soil testing machines, laboratory stores, polythene bags, sheeting and ropes, seeds, mechanical saws, winches, soil fumigants, chemicals, fertilizers, manures, insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, weedkillers, treekillers, dusters, sprayers, blowers, chemicals, respirators, and eye shields are includible in the Central Sales Tax registration certificate granted to the petitioner.

2. Interpretation of Section 8(1) and 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act:
Section 8(1) of the Act specifies the tax rate for dealers in inter-State trade or commerce, while Section 8(3)(b) details the goods that can be included in the registration certificate. The court noted that these goods must be intended for resale, or for use 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.

3. Applicability of Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957:
Rule 13 prescribes that goods intended for use by a registered dealer in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale must be raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel, or lubricants. The court emphasized that goods used in cultivation and crop protection do not fall within these categories as they are not directly connected with the production or manufacturing process.

4. Comparison of Judicial Precedents from the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court:
The court compared its previous decision in Travancore Tea Estates Company Ltd. v. The State of Kerala with the decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J., of the Madras High Court in The Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Company Ltd. v. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. While the Madras High Court held that cultivation or growing of tea leaves is an integral part of manufacturing tea, the Kerala High Court disagreed, emphasizing that such goods must also meet the requirements of Rule 13 to be included in the registration certificate.

5. Examination of Relevant Supreme Court Decisions:
The court reviewed two Supreme Court decisions: Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer. The Supreme Court in these cases held that goods used in processes directly related to the actual production of finished goods should be included in the registration certificate. However, the Kerala High Court concluded that cultivation and crop protection items do not meet this criterion as they are not directly connected with the production or manufacturing process.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the items in question, such as cultivation implements and crop protection materials, might be required in one of the processes in the composite activity but are not directly connected with the production, manufacturing, or processing of the ultimate product. Therefore, these goods do not come within Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules and are not entitled to the benefits of Section 8(1) by virtue of their inclusion in Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision case and did not pass any order regarding costs.

← Previous Next →