9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (4) TMI 6 - SC - Income TaxIndustrial Company - according to the assessee, it is engaged in the business of processing of goods and so entitled to the concessional rate of income-tax - Whether refrigeration and fumigation are of the same or similar import, or whether there is any difference, is a matter which requires a close look - Whether the appellant is an industrial company as defined in the respective Finance Acts and can be taxed only at 55 per cent - matter remanded
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is an "industrial company" as defined in the respective Finance Acts and can therefore be taxed only at 55 per cent. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of "Industrial Company": The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant qualifies as an "industrial company" under the respective Finance Acts for the assessment years 1974-75, 1976-77, and 1977-78. The Finance Act of 1974, section 2(8)(c), defines an "industrial company" as one mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, construction of ships, manufacture or processing of goods, or mining. The appellant contends that it is engaged in the "processing of goods" and thus should be taxed at the concessional rate of 55 per cent. 2. Activities of the Appellant: The appellant, a public limited company, exports chillies to the USA, USSR, and Ceylon. The chillies are sorted, graded, clipped, stemmed, and fumigated with methyl bromide to prevent deterioration and enhance their marketability. The appellant argues that these activities constitute "processing of goods." 3. Previous High Court Decisions: The Madras High Court, in its judgment for the assessment year 1971-72 (Addl. CIT v. Chillies Export House Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 73), held that the appellant was not an "industrial company" as it did not engage in the entire activity of processing the goods itself. This decision was followed for the subsequent assessment years without further discussion. 4. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel contends that the High Court's earlier decision did not appropriately consider the relevant provisions of the Finance Act or the meaning of "processing of goods." The appellant highlights that the fumigation was done by Mysodet Pvt. Ltd. under a contract, and this should not disqualify it from being considered as engaged in processing. 5. Relevant Case Law and Circulars: The appellant refers to several decisions and a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to support its claim. Notably: - Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124, where the Supreme Court held that "processing" involves subjecting a commodity to treatment that prepares it for the market. - CIT v. Lakhtar Cotton Press Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 503, where the Gujarat High Court held that ginning and pressing cotton amounted to processing. - Circular No. 347, dated July 7, 1982, which accepted that companies engaged in book publishing qualify as industrial companies even if they do not own printing presses. 6. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argues that the decision in Chowgule's case has been restricted by a later Supreme Court decision in Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 656, which held that mere preservation does not constitute processing. The Revenue contends that the appellant's activities are minimal and do not result in a different substance being created. 7. Requirement for Further Investigation: The Supreme Court notes that the Madras High Court did not consider the fumigation activity appropriately and that the cumulative effect of all activities carried out by the appellant needs a thorough evaluation. The Court emphasizes the need for technical assistance to determine if the appellant's activities amount to "processing of goods." Conclusion: The Supreme Court sets aside the judgments of the High Court and remits the matter for a de novo consideration. The High Court is instructed to conduct a detailed investigation into the appellant's activities and determine if they constitute "processing of goods" in light of the relevant case law and circulars. Judgment: The appeals are allowed, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. There shall be no order as to costs.
|
