2006 (11) TMI 200 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the job work performed by the assessee in addition to its production for its own purposes can be taken into consideration for the purposes of clause 2(f) of the 1989 Incentive Scheme, as had been held both by the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court? Held that - Both the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court laboured under the presumption that the job work performed by the respondent-assessee involved manufacture of goods which were similar in nature to its own goods for sale. Such an approach, in our view, was erroneous, since the very nature of the incentive given under the aforesaid 1989 Incentive Scheme involves calculation of the actual production of the unit in question. In the absence of any material to indicate the nature of job work undertaken, it would be improper to proceed only on the basis of presumption. The Department s appeal must, therefore, succeed and is allowed and the judgment of both the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court dated 18th January, 2000 and 9th February, 1999, respectively, are set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the "Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989" regarding expansion criteria under Clause 2(f).
2. Consideration of job work in determining production capacity for eligibility under the Incentive Scheme.
3. Evaluation of the nature of job work undertaken by the assessee for eligibility certification.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the Incentive Scheme Criteria
The case involved a challenge against the rejection of an application for an Eligibility Certificate under the "Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989." The dispute centered around the interpretation of the term "expansion" as per Clause 2(f) of the scheme, which required an increase in production by at least 25% of the original licensed capacity. The Rajasthan Tax Board initially rejected the application, stating that the production increase did not meet the required threshold. However, the High Court later ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing job work to be considered towards meeting the production criteria for the eligibility certificate.

Issue 2: Consideration of Job Work for Eligibility
The primary contention revolved around whether job work undertaken by the assessee could be included in calculating the production increase required for eligibility under the Incentive Scheme. The Tax Board and the High Court differed in their interpretations, with the High Court allowing job work to be factored in. The High Court emphasized that the scheme did not specify that production had to be solely for the assessee's own purposes, enabling the inclusion of job work output in determining eligibility.

Issue 3: Evaluation of Job Work Nature
A crucial aspect overlooked by both the Tax Board and the High Court was the nature of the job work performed by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the absence of clarity regarding the type of job work undertaken and whether it aligned with the production requirements outlined in the Incentive Scheme. The failure to ascertain the specifics of the job work and relying on presumptions led to an erroneous consideration of the production capacity. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurately assessing the nature of job work to determine its inclusion in calculating the production increase for eligibility certification.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court, emphasizing the need for a thorough evaluation of the job work's nature to determine its relevance in meeting the production criteria under the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989. The decision underscored the importance of clarity and factual evidence in assessing eligibility for incentives under such schemes.