9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered under the said Act as a dealer as well as a purchasing commission agent. During the period from 18th October, 1963, to 4th November, 1964, they purchased unpolished stainless steel utensils, which have been described by the Tribunal in its statement of facts as semi-finished stainless steel utensils against declarations in form 17 on the strength of the permit held by them. These purchases were effected by the applicants on behalf of their principals who were dealers at Ahmedabad and were registered there under the very same Act, viz., the said Act, as enforced in the Gujarat State, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The total purchases effected by the applicants on behalf of their aforesaid principals were to the tune of Rs. 8,07,903. Out of these purchases, unpolished utensils worth Rs. 6,05,624 were consigned by the appli cants to the said principals at Ahmedabad in the same form in which they were purchased. As regards utensils worth Rs. 27,141, which were consigned to the principals in the same form in which they were purchased, there was some difficulty regarding the proof of consignment, but, in this reference, we are not concerned with the same. The rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant portion of section 11 reads thus: "Where any dealer liable to pay tax under this Act, sells any taxable goods- (1) to an authorised dealer, who certifies in the prescribed form,(a) that the goods will be despatched in the same form in which they were purchased and without doing anything to them which might amount to or result in a manufacture thereof, within three months from the date of purchase, to its own place of business outside the State for sale or for use in the manufacture of goods for sale outside the State, and...... (2) to a commission agent holding a permit who certifies in the prescribed form- (a) that he is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and (b) that the goods are purchased by him as commission agent for his principal who is, (i) the Central Government, and that the goods will be despatched on behalf of such Government outside the State, or (ii) a dealer whose place of business is outside the State and who is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that the good will be sold or will be used in the manufacture of goods for sale outside the State by the principal, or (iii) a registered dealer having a place of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modity at all whereas after polishing, the said utensils became marketable and hence they became a new commercial commodity. We find it difficult to accept these submissions. In our view, what is required under the relevant provisions of section 11, sub-section (2), of the said Act and the declaration in form 17 is that the very goods purchased must be despatched to the outside State principals. Merely because some process like polishing is carried out on these utensils, they do not cease to be the same utensils. What was purchased by the applicants were stainless steel utensils. What has been despatched by them to their principals are also these very stainless steel utensils. We fail to understand how by merely undergoing polishing the said stainless steel utensils have become different utensils. In this connection it is significant that clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the said Act specifically provides that to obtain the benefit thereunder the goods must be despatched in the same form in which they were purchased and without doing anything to them which might amount to or result in a manufacture thereof. No such condition is laid down in sub-section (2) of section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ......Where commercial goods, without change of their identity as such goods, are merely subjected to some processing or finishing or are merely joined together, they may remain commercially the goods which cannot be taxed again, in a series of sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type." As far as the construction of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the said Act is concerned, reference can usefully be made to our decision in Empire Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[1977] 40 S.T.C. 1. A question arose there regarding the lower rate of tax provided in section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of certain sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. In that case, we have pointed out that the omission of the words "by him" after the words "manufacture or processing of goods for sale" in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Central Sales Tax Act is significant, and all the more so, when the words "by him" are used after the words "for resale " earlier in the same clause. In our view, the omission of the words "in the same form in which they were purchased and without doing anything to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to their bill of purchase, their statement of account sent to their Ahmedabad principals and to certain delivery challans and receipts which describe the goods purchased by the applicants and the goods despatched by them to their Ahmedabad principals in the same manner, showing that there was no change in the identity of the goods or that the goods purchased had not become goods of any different type by reason of the polishing carried out on them. Coming to question No. (2) we are of the view that in the light of what we have observed earlier, it is not necessary to determine this question at all, because what we are really concerned with is whether the goods purchased by the applicants were the same goods as were despatched by them to their Ahmedabad principals. The question whether there was any process amounting to manufacture applied to the said goods is of no significance unless the identity of the goods was thereby altered. Apart from this, it must be noted that the learned chartered accountant who appeared before the Tribunal for the applicants has on several occasions in the course of the arguments before the Tribunal conceded that his clients, viz., the applicants, did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
