9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial Tax Officer, the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners regarding the ingredients and process of manufacturing of the coke briquettes has not been denied. It has been stated: "The deponent further states and submits that coal briquettes are not coal nor coke as these are manufactured mechanically by mixing coal-dust, soil and molasses." As such it is not in dispute, in the present writ applications, that the petitioners are manufacturing briquettes by mixing coal-dust with soil and molasses which are being used for domestic use. The controversy is only as to whether such briquettes can be held to be either coal or coke so as to be held to be declared goods within the meaning of section 14(ia) of the Act. 4. The relevant part of section 14 of the Act is as follows: "14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce.It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in interState trade or commerce: .............................. (ia) coal, including coke in all its forms, but excluding charcoal: Provided that during the period commencing on the 23rd day of February, 1967, and ending with the date of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of expression "coal, including coke in all its forms", occurring in section 14(ia), for the purpose of determination whether it shall include "petroleum coke". In that connection it was observed: "It may be that the clause mentions coal only and then declares that that word shall include coke in all its forms. That shows that the object of the words which follow coal is to extend its meaning. In the writ petition it was stated in para 2 that 'coke is the refuse left after destructive distillation of coal, shaleoil and is called petroleum coke, metallurgical coke or pitch coke, to indicate its source or origin; but all these are carbonaceous material used for the same purpose and having same properties, more or less, main being-Mixed carbon, Volatile matters, Ash and Moisture..........At any rate, the language employed is so wide, viz., 'coke in all its forms', that petroleum coke which is a form of coke cannot possibly be excluded merely by reference to the word 'coal'. " In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. v. Taj Mahal Hotel AIR 1972 SC 168, it was pointed out: "The word 'includes' is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th which we are concerned in respect of coke briquettes "manufactured by mechanically pressing the mixture of coaldust, multani mitti and molasses" and came to the following conclusion: "The allegation that coke briquettes are meant for domestic kitchen consumption is not denied in the counter-affidavit. The coke therefore manufactured by mechanical pressing is used for the same purpose as coke. The contents of coke briquettes, namely, moisture, volatile matters, ash and carbon are the same as in any other coke. The mere change in shape by mechanical pressing does not change the commodity. It remains the same. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary form' has been defined as, 'the shape and structure of something as distinguished from the material of which it is composed'. Mere change of shape or structure in the raw material does not result in production of a new commodity. And even if it is so the entry is wide enough to cover in its fold commodities which remain the same despite change in shape. Coke briquettes thus being only a preparation of coke dust are covered by the expression coke in all its forms'." 9.. Again, the Madras High Court in the case of Deputy Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an entirely new and separately identifiable product may come into existence. That product need not be held, necessarily as a part of one of the constituents used, as in this case coal-dust. In support of his contention reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1981] 48 STC 411. In that case, the Supreme Court was construing an entry "all kinds of minerals, ores, metals, and alloys including sheets and circles used in the manufacture of brasswares and scraps..........." In that connection it was pointed out that the expression "including" does not enlarge the meaning of the word "metal" and must be understood in a conjunctive sense as a substitute for "and". It was held that aluminium rolled products were distinct commercial items from aluminium ingots and billets. In my view, when the Supreme Court itself has interpreted the expression "coal, including coke in all its forms", occurring in section 14(ia) of the Act, in the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati [1971] 28 STC 603; AIR 1972 SC 154 and observed "that the object of the words which follow coal is to extend its mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts like pig iron and cast iron including ingot, etc., it was held that each of the categories falling under "iron and steel" constitutes a new species of commercial commodity. The interpretation given to the expression "iron and steel" in section 14(iv) cannot be applied to section 14(ia) of the Act because in section 14(iv) after mentioning "iron and steel" the framers of the Act added the expression "that is to say" and specified the different products. In that background, each of the products mentioned were held to be new species of commercial commodities for purposes of sales tax. Here all forms of coke have been included under section 14(ia) and they have not been specified as separate products. 16.. It was then submitted on behalf of the respondents that as in the case of Kundori Labour Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1986 Pat 242, a Full Bench of this Court has held that slurry is not coal and thereafter a Bench of this Court in the case of Waste Products Reclaimer P. Ltd. v. Coal Controller 1986 BLT 177 has held that briquettes prepared out of slurry are not coal, it should be held that briquettes prepared even from the coal-dust are neither coal nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance that an assessee is likely to be taxed by giving wrong interpretation of some entry in the relevant statute; that objection has to be heard initially by the taxing officer and then to be examined by the appellate authorities. At a later stage, in accordance with the provisions of the statute or under article 226 of the Constitution, this Court can examine if any entry or provisions of the taxing statute has been wrongly applied. But, in the instant case, as the Deputy Commissioner has issued a direction to all officers concerned directing them to treat the briquettes prepared from the coal-dust as unspecified goods and to levy tax at the rate of 8 per cent, the apprehensions of the petitioners are justified that the taxing officers are not going to apply their independent mind on the question aforesaid. It may be pointed out that the said decision had been taken at the level of the State Government which is apparent from the impugned communication [annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 755 of 1986(R) as well as annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 1277 of 1986(R)] where the Deputy Commissioners have specifically mentioned that the State Government has taken the decision that coal briquettes should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , from the petitioners who are manufacturing the briquettes, if sales tax has already been paid over the coal or coal-dust from which coke briquettes are being prepared. There is no occasion to decide this question in the present writ applications. In the present writ applications, we are concerned only with the question whether the coke briquettes prepared by the petitioners shall be deemed to be a form of coke, over which the sales tax in the State of Bihar cannot exceed 4 per cent, in view of section 14(ia) read with section 15(a) of the Act and as to whether a decision taken by the State Government in respect thereof and communicated to the different authorities should be quashed. The question whether the petitioners are not liable to pay sales tax at all because that will amount to levying tax at more than one stage has to be decided by the taxing officers on the materials produced by the petitioners during the course of the assessment proceeding. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid question has to be determined with reference to the facts of each case. 20.. In the result, these two writ applications are allowed and the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
