1991 (7) TMI 312 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there could be a resale of wooden boxes when sold along with oil engines.
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing set-off for certain items u/r 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970.
3. Whether certain items could be classified as "consumable stores" u/s 13(1)(B) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Summary:

Issue 1: Resale of Wooden Boxes
The Tribunal held that there could not be a resale of wooden boxes when sold along with oil engines, based on the provisions of section 21 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The High Court reframed the question and answered it in the negative, in favor of the dealer and against the Revenue. The Court emphasized that the question of whether the container forms part of the article or is a separate sale is a question of fact, as held by the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal should have examined the facts to determine if there were two separate sales'one for oil engines and another for wooden boxes.

Issue 2: Set-off for Certain Items u/r 42
The Tribunal allowed set-off for items like name-plates, wooden strips, cellac glue, hose pipes, hardware, packing material, and timber, applying the ratio of the judgment in Vasuki Carborundum Works. The High Court affirmed this decision, stating that these items are used in the manufacture of taxable goods. The Court noted that the expression "used in manufacturing" should not be given a restricted meaning and followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. and J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.

Issue 3: Classification as "Consumable Stores" u/s 13(1)(B)
The Tribunal classified items like acetylene gas, diamond dresser, hardware, emery cloth, color, pana-sets, cutting oil, welding rods, foundation bolts, painting brush, pressure gauge, emery paper, crankshaft, and machine tools as "consumable stores," except for "ghan" and "hammer." The High Court agreed with this classification, except for "ghan" and "hammer," which it held are tools and not consumable stores. The Court emphasized that the classification should be based on the use of the item in the manufacture of taxable goods and not on whether it forms part of the dealer's assets.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the reference questions as follows:
1. In favor of the dealer and against the Revenue regarding the resale of wooden boxes.
2. In favor of the assessee and against the Revenue regarding the set-off for certain items u/r 42.
3. In favor of the Revenue and against the assessee regarding "ghan" and "hammer" but in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue for other items classified as "consumable stores."