2007 (9) TMI 570 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Conversion of raw bones into crushed bones - Whether manufacturing activity? - claim of exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 - Held that - In the present case we are concerned with conversion of raw bones into crushed bones and in view of what has been said by the apex court in A.A. Sulaiman s case 1997 (3) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA we cannot hold that such conversion would amount to a manufacturing activity. In view of the above, the appellant is not entitled to claim any exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993. Writ appeal filed by the appellant requires to be rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of sales tax exemption application by District Level Committee
2. Rejection of appeal by State Level Committee
3. Interpretation of "manufacture" in the context of converting raw bones into crushed bones
4. Legal validity of orders passed by authorities

Analysis:

1. The District Level Committee rejected the sales tax exemption application of the petitioner, a crushed bones manufacturer, citing lack of manufacturing activity in converting raw bones to bone meal. The rejection was based on a previous judgment stating no manufacturing process in such conversion. The appellant challenged this rejection before the State Level Committee, which also upheld the decision based on the same grounds.

2. The State Level Committee rejected the appeal after considering the appellant's arguments that the conversion of raw bones into crushed bones constitutes a manufacturing activity. The committee reiterated the lack of manufacturing process in bone meal production, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that the conversion of raw bones into crushed bones should be considered a manufacturing activity, entitling them to exemption under the relevant notification. The legal counsel cited definitions of "manufacture" provided in notifications and court precedents to support their claim. However, the court referenced previous judgments stating that no commercially different commodity emerges from the conversion process, thus not meeting the criteria for manufacturing.

4. The court analyzed the legal validity of the orders passed by the authorities, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation of exemptions under the statute. The court highlighted that the authorities correctly applied the law by determining that the conversion of raw bones into crushed bones did not qualify as a manufacturing activity. The court also dismissed the argument that the orders were cryptic, stating that the authorities provided reasoning based on legal precedents and correctly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, rejecting the appellant's claim for sales tax exemption based on the lack of manufacturing activity in converting raw bones into crushed bones. The court emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of exemptions and legal definitions in such cases, ultimately ruling against the appellant.