1991 (4) TMI 371 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the registration certificate under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. Definition and scope of "manufacture" under the Act of 1941.
4. Discrepancies in the applicant's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Registration Certificate under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941:
The applicant, a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, sought to amend its registration certificate to include "raw coconut oil" for manufacturing refined coconut oil. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected the application on August 4, 1988, on the grounds that the applicant failed to prove the purchase of "raw coconut oil." The Tribunal determined that the applicant indeed manufactures refined coconut oil by further processing the purchased coconut oil, which is used in the biscuit industry. The Tribunal directed the respondent to amend the registration certificate to include "coconut oil," effective from March 21, 1985.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The Tribunal clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to decide on matters concerning the registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it is not included in the Schedule of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. Consequently, the matter related to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was sent back to the Calcutta High Court for disposal.

3. Definition and Scope of "Manufacture" under the Act of 1941:
The Tribunal examined the definition of "manufacture" as per section 2(dd) of the Act of 1941, which was amended on April 1, 1985. The revised definition includes producing, making, extracting, or blending any goods but excludes certain prescribed manufacturing processes. The Tribunal emphasized that for an activity to qualify as "manufacture," it must result in a commercially different commodity. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Coco Fibres, to support its interpretation. It concluded that the refined coconut oil produced by the applicant is a different commercial commodity from the raw coconut oil purchased, thus constituting "manufacture."

4. Discrepancies in the Applicant's Case:
The Tribunal acknowledged discrepancies in the applicant's statements in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-reply. Initially, the applicant described the purchased coconut oil as the finished product of the dealers but later claimed it was unrefined oil. Despite these inconsistencies, the Tribunal found that the refined coconut oil produced by the applicant through various processes is a different commercial commodity, thereby supporting the applicant's claim for amending the registration certificate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the impugned order dated August 4, 1988. It directed the respondent to amend the manufacturing column of the registration certificate under the Act of 1941 to include "coconut oil" within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The matter related to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was referred back to the Calcutta High Court for further disposal.

Final Judgment:
Application allowed.