Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (8) TMI 1343 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether oxygen gas used in the manufacturing of steel through the Basic Oxygen Steel (BOS) method is a raw material.
2. Assessment of the applicable sales tax rate on oxygen gas sold for steel manufacturing.
3. Validity of the orders passed by the assessing officer, appellate authority, and revisional authority.
4. Consideration of previous litigation and Supreme Court directions on the matter.
5. Interpretation of notifications under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Whether Oxygen Gas is a Raw Material:
The petitioner challenged the classification of oxygen gas used in the BOS method of steel manufacturing. The core issue was whether oxygen gas should be considered a raw material, which would attract a lower sales tax rate of 2%, or merely a material used in the process, attracting a 3% sales tax rate.

The court analyzed the manufacturing process of steel through the BOS method, noting that oxygen is used in a significant quantity and is essential for converting pig iron into steel. The court emphasized that oxygen cannot be replaced by any other element and is crucial for reducing carbon content in pig iron, thus making it a raw material.

2. Assessment of the Applicable Sales Tax Rate:
The petitioner argued that oxygen gas should be taxed at a rate of 2% as per the notification dated February 3, 1986, which applies to raw materials used in manufacturing. The court agreed, stating that oxygen gas is a basic raw material in the BOS method, and thus, the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 2% instead of 3%.

3. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Authorities:
The orders passed by the assessing officer, appellate authority, and revisional authority were challenged. These authorities had classified oxygen gas as a refining agent rather than a raw material. The court found that these authorities had not properly appreciated the role of oxygen in the manufacturing process and had erroneously classified it based on terminology rather than its actual usage and necessity in the process.

The court quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), and the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, as well as the consequential demand notice.

4. Consideration of Previous Litigation and Supreme Court Directions:
The court revisited the previous litigation, where the Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the assessing officer to determine whether oxygen is a raw material based on evidence and a site visit. A committee was constituted, which reported that oxygen is used as a refining agent. However, the court noted that this report did not fully appreciate the chemical reactions and the indispensable role of oxygen in the BOS method.

5. Interpretation of Notifications Under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981:
The court examined various notifications under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, which differentiated between raw materials and other goods used in manufacturing. The court concluded that the notifications should be interpreted in light of the actual usage and necessity of the material in the manufacturing process. The court held that oxygen gas qualifies as a raw material under the notification dated February 3, 1986.

Conclusion:
The court held that oxygen gas used in the BOS method of steel manufacturing is a basic raw material and should be taxed at the rate of 2% as per the relevant notification. The orders passed by the assessing officer, appellate authority, and revisional authority were quashed, and the demand notice was set aside. The court directed that any differential amount already paid by the petitioner should be adjusted towards future tax liabilities.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates