2010 (4) TMI 986 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondents materials used in the job work of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium alloys by utilizing the raw materials supplied by its customers is not liable for levy of purchase tax under section 13AA under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the levy of interest under section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? Held that - The Tribunal has rightly held that since there is no manufacture process involved, it will not be legal to hold that such purchase would qualify for levy of purchase tax. Therefore, both the questions referred hereinabove are answered in favour of the respondent/assessee and against the applicant/ Revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium alloys using customer-supplied materials amounts to manufacture and is liable for purchase tax under section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Whether the deletion of interest under section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was justified.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the activity of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium alloys using customer-supplied materials amounts to manufacture and is liable for purchase tax under section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The court examined whether the respondent's activity of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium alloys using materials supplied by customers constitutes "manufacture" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (BST Act). The respondent argued that this activity falls under the Works Contract Act and not the BST Act, as they were already paying tax under the Works Contract Act. The court referred to the definitions and provisions under both the BST Act and the Works Contract Act, emphasizing the distinct fields in which they operate. The court noted that the definitions of "dealer," "purchase price," "sale," and "sale price" differ significantly between the two Acts. The court held that the materials used by the respondent in the execution of works contracts do not result in a transfer of property to the customer and thus do not qualify as a "sale" under the BST Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the respondent's activity does not amount to "manufacture" under the BST Act and is not liable for purchase tax under section 13AA.

Issue 2: Whether the deletion of interest under section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was justified.

The court examined the Tribunal's decision to delete the levy of interest under section 36(3)(b) of the BST Act. The Tribunal had held that since the respondent's activity did not qualify as "manufacture" and was not liable for purchase tax, the consequential levy of interest was also unjustified. The court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that without the liability for purchase tax, the interest under section 36(3)(b) could not be imposed. Therefore, the deletion of the interest levy was upheld.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the respondent's activity of converting aluminium ingots into aluminium alloys using customer-supplied materials does not amount to "manufacture" under the BST Act and is not liable for purchase tax under section 13AA. Consequently, the deletion of the levy of interest under section 36(3)(b) was also justified. Both questions referred to the court were answered in favor of the respondent/assessee and against the applicant/Revenue, and the reference was disposed of accordingly.