1991 (4) TMI 368 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Quashing of orders dated 29th June, 1988, and 14th March, 1988, passed by the Divisional Level Committee
- Direction sought for granting exemption certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for a new manufacturing unit
- Rejection of review application by the Divisional Level Committee

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash orders passed by the Divisional Level Committee and obtain an exemption certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for a new manufacturing unit. The petitioner contended that the second unit, manufacturing different drugs, qualified as a new unit under the Act. The review application was rejected based on the absence of specific registration in the new unit's name. However, the Court found that both units were owned by the same company, and mere technicalities should not disqualify the petitioner from exemption eligibility. The definition of "new unit" under section 4-A was crucial, allowing for the establishment of a new unit adjacent to an existing one, even if manufacturing different goods.

The Court emphasized that the two drugs manufactured by the petitioner were distinct and did not fall under the same category, despite being medicines. The taxing entry covering all medicines did not negate the difference between the drugs for the purpose of exemption eligibility. The definition of "goods" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was broad, supporting the argument that the two drugs were not the same goods under section 4-A.

Regarding the rejection based on a Commissioner's Circular, the Court clarified that the circular was meant as guidance and not binding law. The Committee erred in misinterpreting the circular and failing to apply the definition of "new unit" correctly. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Committee to reevaluate the case in light of the judgment, emphasizing the proper application of the legal provisions. The Court stayed further proceedings until the review application was decided, ensuring compliance with the law and providing relief to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, highlighting the importance of accurate interpretation and application of legal provisions in determining exemption eligibility under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The judgment provided clarity on the definition of a new unit and emphasized the need for a thorough review of the case based on established legal principles.