2000 (3) TMI 58 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether gitti, stone chips and dust continue to be stone or on crushing stone boulders into gitti, stone chips and dust different commercial goods emerge so as to attract tax on their sale? Held that - Where the dealer had brought into existence new commercial goods by consuming the boulders to bring out small pieces of stone, it was held that such activity attracted purchase tax. In the present case, however, stone, as such, and gitti and articles of stones are all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if gitti, kankar, stone-ballast, etc. may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that Entry 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term stone is wide enough to include the various forms such as gitti, kankar, stone ballast. Thus view taken by the majority of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court that at the goods continue to be stone and they are not commercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales tax stands to reason. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of stone chips, gitti, and dust under sales tax notification.
2. Interpretation of the definition of 'manufacture' under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
3. Determination of whether stone products are separate taxable goods.

Issue 1: Taxability of Stone Chips, Gitti, and Dust:
The case involved a dealer converting stone boulders into stone chips, gitti, and dust for sale, questioning the imposition of sales tax on the resulting goods. The dealer argued that since sales tax was paid on the boulders, the processed goods should not be taxed again. The Tribunal and High Court held that the processed goods remained stone and were not distinct commercial products for tax purposes. The Supreme Court analyzed the notification listing taxable items and emphasized that once separate commercial commodities emerge, they become individually taxable. Referring to precedents, the Court clarified that if processed goods retain their identity as a particular type, they should not be taxed repeatedly. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision that stone products continued to be stone and were not subject to additional tax.

Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Manufacture' Definition:
The Department contended that the dealer's process constituted 'manufacture' under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, which defines 'manufacture' broadly to include various activities related to goods processing. The Department argued that the conversion of boulders into stone chips and gitti fell under this definition, justifying tax imposition. However, the Court scrutinized the Act's definition and highlighted that the purpose of sales tax is to tax the sale of distinct goods, not the substance from which they are made. The Court emphasized that commercial goods must retain their identity to avoid multiple taxation, supporting the view that the processed stone products were not separate taxable entities.

Issue 3: Determination of Separate Taxable Goods:
The Court examined whether stone products like gitti and chips were distinguishable from the original boulders for tax purposes. It differentiated this case from precedents involving the creation of new goods from consumed materials. The Court noted that while the processed products varied in size, they remained similar in nature to the boulders. The majority view of the Tribunal and High Court, which deemed the stone products as not commercially distinct from the boulders, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the processed goods were encompassed within the broader term 'stone' and did not warrant separate taxation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision that stone chips, gitti, and dust derived from stone boulders were not subject to additional sales tax. The Court's analysis emphasized the importance of retaining the identity of commercial goods to determine taxability and clarified the interpretation of 'manufacture' under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.