2007 (9) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Levy of tax on consideration received on the sale of import licence, determination of whether the dealer should be treated as a manufacturer or importer, interpretation of the term "manufacture" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis:

The High Court addressed the issue of tax liability on the consideration received from the sale of an import license. The dealer contended that they were neither a manufacturer nor an importer in the said transaction, hence the sale consideration should not be taxed. The assessing authority, however, treated the dealer as a manufacturer and imposed tax. The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the dealer, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. Both authorities concluded that the dealer was neither an importer nor a manufacturer in the sale of the import license.

The High Court referred to a previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ovject De Art India, Moradabad, where it was established that the definition of "manufacture" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only to tangible goods and not to intangible goods like REP licenses or exim scrips. These intangible goods cannot be manufactured in the traditional sense, and thus, the authority granting the license cannot be considered a manufacturer. Additionally, a notification issued by the State Government specified the liability of tax on sales of goods like import licenses, but notably did not impose this liability on the manufacturer, as these permits and licenses are not manufactured goods.

Based on the interpretation of the term "manufacture" and the precedents cited, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the dealer. Consequently, the revision against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed, affirming that the dealer should not be treated as a manufacturer for tax purposes in the sale of import licenses.