9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question being covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores [2002 (11) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]on the same item, it is not open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any "manufacturing". Unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. The Revenue authority in the present case is proceeding on the basis of a binding legal precedent and not merely on its own opinion. There can be estoppel against law. Even if eligibility certificate was issued, the Revenue authority can certainly act on established l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Concession Scheme was introduced being 2005 Scheme and the petitioner applied for certificate for entitlement under the said Scheme which was granted on September 4, 2006 for the period from December 22, 2000 to March 31, 2007. The Superintendent of Taxes, Karimganj, vide letter dated September 11, 2008 asked the petitioner to explain why the certificate and entitlement would not be revoked with effect from May 1, 2005, as stone crushing activities undertaken by the petitioner did not amount to "manufacturing" which was a condition precedent for grant of exemption. The petitioner offered the proposal but vide order dated June 7, 2008, certificate of entitlement granted to the petitioner has been revoked. According to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if not, whether the sales tax exemption already granted could be withdrawn? The very same question came up for consideration in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC); [2003] 1 SCC 70 in the context of question referred to the High Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, i.e. (page 80 in 129 STC): "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, was the Tribunal justified in holding that crushing of boulders resulting in mental of different sizes ordinarily known as 'gitti' does not amount to manufacture?" The High Court answered the question in favour of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC); [2010] 2 SCC 699, conversion of raw marble blocks into final product of polished marble slabs was held to involve "manufacturing". In Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1997] 10 SCC 717, application of character or use test was held to be permissible to determine whether "manufacturing" was involved. In a judgment of this court in Data Plus Info Channel v. State of Assam [2013] 58 VST 262 (Gauhati) in W.P. (C) No. 4196 of 2010 decided on September 17, 2012 cutting of paper from paper roll, etc., was held to involve "manufacturing". The question whether a process amounts to "manufacturing" has been dealt with in several judgments in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial-in the form of affidavit expressing the opinion of the persons said to be engaged in or connected with, the textile trade as to the commercial identity of the commodities before and after the processing-placed before the court in a subsequent case. These opinions are, of course, relevant and would be amongst the various factors to be taken into account in deciding the question." In the present case, the question being covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court on the same item, it is not open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any "manufacturing". No doubt a Division Bench of this court in Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the issue was debatable even at the time when eligibility certificate was granted which admittedly was after the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC); [2003] 1 SCC 70. We, thus, are unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. The Revenue authority in the present case is proceeding on the basis of a binding legal precedent and not merely on its own opinion. There can be estoppel against law. Even if eligibility certificate was issued, the Revenue authority can certainly act on established legal position. In view of above, we are unable to interfere with the impugned action. However, having regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
