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 - 2015 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (11) TMI 260 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to set-off of tax paid on purchases of cement used in the foundation of machinery.
2. Entitlement to set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, for tax paid on purchases of materials for research and development.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Set-Off of Tax Paid on Purchases of Cement Used in the Foundation of Machinery:

The primary issue was whether the dealer was entitled to a set-off of the tax paid on purchases of cement used in the foundation of machinery used for manufacturing goods for sale. The Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority both concluded that the cement purchased was not used directly in the manufacturing process but was instead used for purposes such as construction of staff quarters, which are not related to manufacturing activities. The Tribunal endorsed the finding that the cement was not used during the course of manufacturing goods but was substantially used for non-manufacturing purposes. Thus, the set-off was rightly disallowed as the cement brought in had no direct connection with the manufacturing activity.

2. Entitlement to Set-Off Under Rule 41D for Purchases of Materials for Research and Development:

The second issue revolved around whether the dealer was entitled to a set-off under Rule 41D for tax paid on purchases of materials used for research and development of existing and new products. The Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority found that the language of Rule 41D did not permit such a set-off. Rule 41D provides for a set-off of tax paid by a manufacturer in respect of purchases made on or after the notified day, specifically for goods used in the manufacturing of goods for sale or export within the State. The rule does not extend to purchases for research and development purposes. The Tribunal noted that the set-off could only be claimed if the purchased goods were used directly in the manufacturing process and the manufactured goods were sold or exported. Since the materials for research and development did not meet these criteria, the set-off was not admissible.

Legal Reasoning and Interpretation:

The court emphasized that the language of Rule 41D is plain, unambiguous, and clear, leaving no room for interpretation. The rule specifies that set-off is admissible only for goods used directly in the manufacturing process, which are then sold or exported. The court also highlighted that the principles of statutory interpretation come into play only when the language of a statute is ambiguous or leads to an absurd construction, which was not the case here.

Additional Considerations:

The court dismissed the dealer's argument that the Tribunal had granted similar benefits to other companies like M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd and M/s Tata Motors Ltd. The court held that a wrong decision in favor of one party does not entitle another party to claim the same benefit. The court also noted that the Tribunal's view in other cases does not bind the court or influence its interpretation of the law.

Conclusion:

The court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the dealer. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded. The court reiterated that the set-off under Rule 41D is strictly limited to goods used directly in the manufacturing process and does not extend to materials used for research and development or for non-manufacturing purposes like construction of staff quarters.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates