1987 (4) TMI 89 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the crushing of dolomite lumps into chips and powder constitutes "manufacture" u/s 2(j) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to deduct sales of dolomite chips and powder from taxable turnover u/s 2(r)(ii) of the State Act and under the Notification dated October 11, 1977, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition of Manufacture
The petitioner argued that crushing dolomite lumps into chips and powder does not constitute "manufacture" as no new commercial commodity is produced. The Sales Tax Officer and the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax held that crushing lumps into chips and powder results in a different commodity, thus constituting "manufacture" u/s 2(j) of the State Act. The court referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, which stated that "manufacture" implies a transformation resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use. The court concluded that dolomite lumps, chips, and powder retain the same characteristics and qualities, and thus, no new commercial commodity is produced by crushing.

Issue 2: Deduction from Taxable Turnover
The petitioner claimed deductions for sales of dolomite chips and powder, asserting they were tax-paid goods u/s 2(r)(ii) of the State Act and under the Notification dated October 11, 1977, under the Central Act. The Sales Tax Officer and the Divisional Deputy Commissioner disallowed these deductions, arguing that the crushed dolomite constituted a new commodity. The court found that the dolomite lumps, chips, and powder are commercially the same commodity. The price difference between lumps and powder was attributed to additional costs incurred in the crushing process, not to the creation of a new commodity. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the sales of dolomite chips and powder from taxable turnover.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Officer. The respondents were directed to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner. The court awarded costs to the petitioner, including counsel's fee of Rs. 200, and ordered the refund of the outstanding security amount.