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

TMI Blog

Home

1959 (3) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they were charging separately for the value of gold and the cost of manufacture. The exemption was claimed by virtue of Notification No. 8728-C.T.-66/49 F dated the 1st July, 1949, of the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department issued in pursuance of section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, exempting certain classes of sales from payment of sales tax. The item with which we are concerned in these petitions is item 33 of the said notification which is as follows: "33. Gold ornaments-When sold by the manufacturer who charges separately for the value of gold and the cost of manufacture". At about the same time Government also issued a press note to the following effect: "Government of Orissa Finance Department PRESS NOTE At present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were prepared and as it is admitted by both parties that those statements correctly represent the facts, I may sum them up as follows: 1..The petitioners do not have a factory for the manufacture of those ornaments. They used to supply gold to some independent artisans who made it into ornaments with the help of their own tools. In some instances the artisans used to work in their own houses; in others they used to work in the shop of the petitioners where they were given electrical facilities and seating arrangements. The petitioners used to pay labour charges to these artisans for converting gold into ornaments, and then they used to sell the ornaments to consumers showing, in their bills, the value of the gold and the cost of manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed products for his sale after receiving from him their labour charges, would still be a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the said exemption clause. In support of this argument he relied on the following definition of the expression "manufacturer" occurring in the Hosiery Act, 1845 (8 and 9 Vic. C.-77, section IX): " 'Manufacturer' means any person furnishing the materials of work to be wrought into hosiery goods to be sold or disposed of on his own account." According to him the petitioners clearly come within this definition. 4.. The dictionary meaning of the word "manufacture" is "to work up material into forms suitable for use or to make or fabricate from material, to produce by labour, now especially on a large scale". Doubtless, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts of the present case, that the independent artisans alone are the manufacturers. They could not obviously claim the benefit of the exemption because they did not sell the goods. But in any view of the case the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of that clause. In support of this view, he relied on some observations of the Madras High Court in Raju Chettiar and Sons v. State of Madras(1). There, a firm of jewellers of Coimbatore used to supply silver in specie to some merchants in Kumbakonam who used to make it into silverware after receiving from that firm charges by way of wages for converting the silver into finished articles. The judgment proceeded on the assumption that, on these facts, the merchants of Kumbakonam were the manuf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... found in cities like Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, are practically unknown. Doubtless, an exemption clause in a taxing statute must be construed strictly, but it should not be so construed as. to make the exemption practically illusory. (1) [1955] 6 S.T.C. 131. 7.. On the other hand, the construction put by Mr. Venkatasubramania Ayyar is not an artificial or strained construction. It is true that the definition given in the Hosiery Act was meant for the purpose of that Act only. But the very fact that even a person, who furnishes raw materials to another person to be made into finished products on behalf of the former person, was a manufacturer, shows that such an interpretation is not artificial. The following observations in Corpus Juri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates