2023 (1) TMI 845 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption from Entry tax - Whether the applicant was covered within the expression 'Manufacturing Dealer' as used in the Notification dated 18.2.2003 (Annexure-2 to the Revision Application) issued under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000? HELD THAT - The words Manufacture and Manufacturer have not been defined under the Entry Tax Act either of the year 2000 which was repealed and subsequently, enacted by the Act of 2007. The word Manufacturer has been defined under the Act of 1948 which means in relation to any goods, the dealer who makes the first sale of the goods in State after their manufacture. The Notification dated 18.02.2003 which provides benefit to a manufacturing dealer of entry on capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts into local area from any place outside the local area for use in their manufacturing has to be construed in harmony with the Act of 2000/2007 read with Act of 1948 - Dealer encompasses any person who carries on in the State the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or indirectly, for cash or deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes the persons mentioned in Section 2(c)-i to viii. This Court in Bulbu Prasad Amarnath 1963 (10) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT way back in 1963 while considering that converting oilseeds into oil which was a manufacturing process has been done at the instance of manufacturer dealer by another owner of the mill. The Court held the owner of mill to be not a manufacturer because he did not own the oilseeds or oil produced by him, as he did not buy the oilseeds from the Assessee nor sold the oil to him, but only charged the labour of crushing the oilseeds into oil. The Court held that in order to be a manufacturer, it is not necessary that person himself must manufacturer. In the instant case, the Assessee had brought capital goods inside the State, which was used for manufacture of catalyst on basis of job work done by M/s ICI, who was manufacturing catalyst only for the Assessee and for no other party. M/s ICI was charging for the manufacture of catalyst from the Assessee and was not making the sale and thus, cannot be termed as manufacturer defined under Section 2(ee) of the Act, 1948. It is the Assessee who had made the first sale and shall be deemed to be a manufacturer dealer and liable to claim benefit of the exemption Notification dated 18.02.2003. The reasoning given by the Tribunal and argument raised by the State counsel cannot be accepted, as it would amount to doing injustice and interpreting the word Manufacture defined under the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law and the Assesseee-revisionist is entitled for the benefit claimed by him. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "Manufacturing Dealer" under the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 and the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis:
The revision was filed challenging the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2004-05 for Entry Tax. The key question revolved around whether the applicant fell within the definition of a "Manufacturing Dealer" as per the relevant notification. The revisionist, a registered dealer, engaged in manufacturing reaction initiators and catalysts through a Toll Conversion Agreement with another company. The dispute arose when the assessing authority disallowed an exemption claim on machinery purchased for manufacturing. The Assessee argued that the definition of "Manufacturer" includes those who make the first sale of goods after manufacture, regardless of where the manufacturing activity takes place.

The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's decision, stating that the Assessee was not a manufacturing dealer entitled to the exemption. The State argued that the machinery was used at the premises of another company and not by the Assessee directly. However, the Assessee contended that the first sale of goods was made by them, making them the manufacturer dealer eligible for the exemption. The Court examined the definitions of "Dealer," "Manufacture," and "Manufacturer" under the relevant Acts and concluded that the Assessee qualified as a manufacturing dealer based on the first sale criterion.

Citing past judgments, the Court emphasized that the actual manufacturer need not be the one conducting the manufacturing activity, as long as the first sale is made by them. The Toll Conversion Agreement confirmed that manufacturing was done exclusively for the Assessee. The Court rejected the restrictive interpretation proposed by the State, maintaining that the Assessee met the criteria for a manufacturing dealer as defined in the Acts. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the revision in favor of the Assessee and answering the legal questions in their favor.