9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . MS. BHARATI SAPRU J. Heard Sri S.D. Singh assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel Sri K.M. Sahai. As common questions of law are involved in all these revisions, they are being heard together and are being decided by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 331 of 2007 as the leading one. The Trade Tax Revision No. 331 of 2007 has been filed by the assessee under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1998-99 (U.P.) being aggrieved by an order passed by the Tribunal dated February 21, 2007. The questions of law referred in the revision are as under: A. Whether biological/scientific instruments and apparatus manufactured by the applicant are exempted by virtue of Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 or they are liable to be taxed as unclassified goods? B. Whether the question of classification of the goods can be decided without even considering the certificates issued by the persons dealing with them, i.e., as per the trade understanding, commercial and technical practice and usage in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 2000. The relevant part of the notification in English reads as under: Maps, educational charts, instrument boxes, educational globes and scientific, mathematical, survey, mechanical drawing and biology instruments and apparatus. The Hindi version of the said notification is reproduced as under: Naksho, shaikshik rekha chitra (chart), upkaranika box shaikshik globe aur vaighyanik, ganitiya, sarvekshan, yantrik uttak (mechanical drawing) aur jeeva vighyan sambandit upkaranikiya aur sadhitra The revisionist assessee is a manufacturer of the following goods: (i) biological safety cabinets; (ii) Laminar flow cabinets; (iii) Fume hoods; (iv) Air showers; (v) Air curtains; (vi) Operation theatre modules; (vii) Air-conditioner modules; (viii) Clean tents; (ix) Clean room garments; (x) Pass boxes; and (xi) Air handling filter, etc. The facts of the case are that the revisionist-assessee is a proprietorship firm, which is engaged in the manufacture and sales of various scientific and biological equipments/instruments , which are used mainly by bioscientists for research purposes, for which the revisionist-assessee is duly registered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification dated April 10, 2000 and also claimed that the benefits of the form as issued under section IIID/D should be given to the assessee. The first appellate authority has however also reached the conclusion that the goods sold by the assessee were not liable to be granted exemption under the notification dated April 10, 2000. Against the rejection of the first appeal by the order dated December 31, 2005, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed its written submission and explanation of its claim for exemption of tax. In support of its claim for exemption, the assessee, relied on the following: (a) Schedule M of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; (b) Certificates issued by various institutions; (c) Laboratory bio-safety manual published by W.H.O. (d) Various judgments of the honourable apex court as well as this honourable court. The Tribunal by his order dated February 21, 2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the goods sold by the assessee are not covered by the Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 and has held that the goods manufactured by the assessee are liable to be taxed as unclassified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engineering controls, mechanical and electrical parts like motors, blower, filtration part, pre-filters, absolute filters with 99.97 per cent efficiency, Germicidal ultra violate lamps to kill the bacteria, exhaust unit with filter and high temperature maintained chamber to kill virus and other agents which are vulnerable to airborne contamination and allow decontaminated air pass through to atmosphere and instrument to check pressure gradients. He has argued that the main purpose of these equipments is to provide bacteria/dust-free, i.e., bio-clean environment in the working chamber to prevent the risk of infections. The equipments, he has argued, such as air-showers, operationtheatre modules and clean air modules are also equipments, which are used for the research scientific and medical purposes to provide a safe environment in the advancement of research and scientific work. He has argued that the Tribunal has returned the findings that all these equipments are biological instruments. They would not be covered under the Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 because they are not biology instruments. He has argued that this is a misconception, which has been made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 is related to things required for the educational field alone is also misconceived for reasons that the entry also contains the word maps and survey instruments and apparatus . His argument is that the maps are used by the school students and they can be used for other purposes also. Similarly the use of survey instruments and apparatus cannot be related or confined to the use by the school students alone as these apparatus are also used by the numerous people including geologists. He has further argued that the notification does not only include the word biology instruments and apparatus, but also includes scientific instruments. Third limb of his argument is that the intention of the Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 is clear from the Hindi version of the notification, which classifies it as applying to jeeva vighyan sambandhit upkarnaya aur sadhitra which is used for study of life sciences. The learned counsel for the assessee has also argued that the intention of the Notification No. 1166 of April 10, 2000 is further made clear from the earlier notification ST-II-2957/X-6 (17)-76 dated 20th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plain language of the notification. For this purpose, he has relied on the decision of this court and of the honourable apex court in the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave reported in AIR 1970 SC 755. His argument is that it is well-settled that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but due regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. In this case, he has argued that the word biology clearly means the study of life sciences and the biological instruments , which are being used are nothing but instruments for the study of the life sciences and therefore the language was clear. The other judgment of this court, in support of the same argument, as relied on by the assessee is in the case of Ambika Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2008] 12 VST 390 (All); 2008 UPTC 455. The learned counsel for the assessee has also argued that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the goods manufactured by the assessee are biological instruments and apparatus for research, lab, etc. As such these goods are clearly exempt from tax and for this purpose the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decisions in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds biology instruments and apparatus is confined to the items used in the study of science of physical life in respect of plants and animal but the goods in question are used in laboratories and research institute. The next argument of the learned standing counsel is that the assessee, in fact, himself never treated the goods in question as exempted goods but treated them as taxable goods under section 3A(1)(c) of the Act as unclassified goods and the assessee charged full rate of tax as is evident from the various cash memos, which are on record and also claimed concessional rate of tax against form IIID (U.P.) and form D (Central). He has further argued that the plain language of the notification is to be read for interpreting and the common parlance or popular sense meaning should be preferred over the technical or scientific meaning of the items and since the goods manufactured by the assessee are not being used for the study of the biology, rather they are biological instruments, they should not be considered for grant of exemption under the said notification. In reply to the submissions made by the learned standing counsel, learned counsel for the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in studies and that would include study at any level including research studies also. In my opinion, the Tribunal has clearly erred in making an artificial distinction between biological instruments, biology instrument because both the instruments are used in study of all life sciences. In so far as the argument as advanced by the learned standing counsel that the assessee himself was under the impression that it was not entitled to exemption, it is clear that while the assessee may have been in doubt earlier but it has later claimed the benefit under the notification, there can be no estoppel against the law. So the benefit as claimed cannot be denied to the assessee on this account. Having examined the material on record, I am of the clear opinion that while resorting the plain meaning of the words, as described in both the notifications, it is clear that the Legislature intended to extend the benefit to persons such as the assessee who were manufacturing biological instruments and it was not confined to the students alone by the subsequent Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000. Had that been so, the Legislature would have once again stipulated that it was confine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
