1989 (2) TMI 198 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the assessee entitled, in respect of their sales, to the concessions available under S. 15 of the CST Act viz. the benefits of single point taxation and of a smaller rate of tax? Held that - The High Court was right in holding that splits and coloured leather continue to be hides and skins eligible for special treatment under the CST Act. All the appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the expression "hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state" under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act).
2. Classification of "leather splits" and "coloured leather" under the CST Act.
3. Eligibility of these items for the benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state":

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state" as used in Section 14 of the CST Act. The respondents, who are dealers in hides and skins, argue that both leather splits and coloured leather fall within this description and thus should be eligible for the benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act. The department contends that leather splits are "scrap" and coloured leather is a new product, thus not qualifying as "hides and skins."

2. Classification of "leather splits" and "coloured leather":

Leather Splits:
The department argues that leather splits, being cut pieces obtained in the process of cutting raw or tanned hides and skins, should be classified as "scrap" and not as "hides and skins." The Board of Revenue supported this view, stating that these splits, being of lesser value and used for miscellaneous purposes, cannot be equated to dressed skins.

Coloured Leather:
The department contends that coloured leather, obtained by dyeing tanned hides and skins, represents a new and sophisticated product different from hides and skins. The process of dyeing or colouring changes the commercial nature of the dressed skins, making them distinct products in trade circles.

3. Eligibility for Benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act:

The respondents argue that both leather splits and coloured leather should be considered as "hides and skins" under Section 14 of the CST Act, thus making them eligible for the benefits of single-point taxation and a smaller rate of tax under Section 15. They refer to contemporaneous circulars and decisions of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal supporting their claim.

Judgment Analysis:

Leather Splits:
The court concluded that leather splits are indeed cut pieces of hides and skins and do not cease to be hides and skins merely because they are called "scraps." The court emphasized that the name "scraps" only indicates that they are cut pieces and does not imply that they have become a different commercial commodity. Therefore, leather splits should be considered as "hides and skins" and eligible for the benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act.

Coloured Leather:
The court referred to the opinion of the Leather Development Wing of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which clarified that the expression "hides and skins in a dressed state" includes all stages from raw hides and skins to tanned and finished materials. The court also noted that the departmental view was inconsistent, with different officers having different interpretations. The court relied on the contemporaneous exposition by the administrative authorities and the definitions provided by the Indian Standards Institution and the British Standards Institution. The court concluded that coloured leather, being a form of leather obtained after tanning and dyeing, still falls within the scope of "hides and skins in a dressed state" and is thus eligible for the benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that both leather splits and coloured leather continue to be "hides and skins" eligible for special treatment under the CST Act. All appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld, confirming that the respondents are entitled to the benefits under Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act for these items. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →