Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (9) TMI 503 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for sales tax exemption under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997, and Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005.
2. Definition and scope of "manufacture" under section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
3. Inclusion of the petitioner's activities in the negative list under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Sales Tax Exemption:
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, sought sales tax exemption for the production of computer stationery under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997, and Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005. The petitioner argued that the industrial policies of Assam provided various incentives, including sales tax exemption for new and expanding industries. Despite applying for eligibility certificates under these schemes, the petitioner's application was kept pending, and a demand notice was issued for tax and interest payable for the assessment year 2005-06. The authorities later informed the petitioner that the unit was not considered an industrial unit engaged in manufacturing, thus ineligible for sales tax exemption.

2. Definition and Scope of "Manufacture":
The core issue was whether the production of computer stationery amounted to "manufacture" under section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner contended that the process involved multiple mechanical steps, including cutting, perforating, and integrating carbon paper, resulting in a distinct end-product known as computer stationery. The court examined the definition of "manufacture," which includes any activity that transforms an article into a new and different article with a distinct name, character, and use. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that "manufacture" involves transformation into a commercially distinct commodity.

3. Inclusion in the Negative List:
The authorities argued that the petitioner's activities were essentially "cutting paper from roll paper," which was included in the negative list under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997, and thus ineligible for tax remission under the 2005 scheme. The petitioner contended that their activities went beyond mere paper cutting, involving several mechanical processes to produce computer stationery, which should not be included in the negative list by inference.

Judgment:
The court held that the petitioner's activities constituted "manufacture" as defined under section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The process involved transforming paper and carbon into a distinct product known as computer stationery, which has a unique identity in commercial parlance. The court found that the authorities' view that the petitioner's activities did not amount to manufacture was unsustainable. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's production of computer stationery as "manufacture" and set aside the impugned order dated January 27, 2009. The respondents were instructed to take necessary actions, including recalling the certificate of public demand and notices issued under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913, and to pass appropriate orders regarding the petitioner's eligibility and entitlement certificate under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to recognize the petitioner's production of computer stationery as a manufacturing activity eligible for tax exemption under the relevant schemes. The court emphasized the distinct commercial identity of the end-product and the comprehensive mechanical processes involved in its production. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates