9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA Versus TARA AGENCIES [2007 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where it was held that the appellant was not in the business of ‘manufacturing’ tea but was merely blending and packing tea, which does not amount to ‘manufacturing’ of tea. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 2806 of 2009, Civil Appeal No.3246 of 2009 Civil Appeal Nos.3247-3253 of 2009 Civil Appeal Nos.3254-3262 of 2009 Civil Appeal Nos.3264-3266 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2016 - Anil R. Dave And Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court on 14th November, 2006, the appellants have approached this Court by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son for not giving the benefits under the Act, as stated by the respondent- Authorities, was that tea was a raw material, in respect of which no exemption was to be given and the appellant-Company was merely blending and packing tea and was not having any manufacturing activity. 7. As the sales tax exemption had been denied to the appellant-Company, the appellant-Company filed petitions before the High Court challenging denial of the tax exemption but the petitions had been rejected by a common Judgment dated 9th September, 2003 and being aggrieved by the rejection of the petitions, the appellant-Company had also filed writ appeals, which have been dismissed by a common Judgment dated 14th November, 2006, and the said judgment has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an assurance was given to the appellant under the eligibility certificate that the appellant-Company would be enjoying exemption under the 1986 Incentive Scheme of Government of Assam, the exemption could not have been withdrawn by the respondent-Authorities. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State Authorities supported the judgments delivered by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court. 11. The learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any estoppel against legal provisions. He further submitted that as per Rule 2(f) of Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Rules, 1988, tea is not the raw material in respect of which exemption from payment of sales tax is to be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 reads as under:- 2(f) Raw material means any material or commodity capable of being used for manufacture of any other product specified in any authorisation certificate as intended by the holder for use by him as raw material in the manufacture of goods in the State for sale by him but shall not include the following commodities namely : (a) tea, (b) coal, (c) liquefied petroleum gas, (d) plywood, (e) petrol, diesel oil and lubricants. In view of the aforestated Rule, it is crystal clear that tea is not to be included in raw material and therefore, no exemption could have been claimed by the Appellant Company in respect of tea as a raw material for purchase as well as sale of tea. It is also pertinent to note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorisation granted under this section shall remain valid for a period of five years from the date of completion of effective steps for setting up the industrial unit in respect of which the certificate is granted. (4) No certificate of authorisation shall be granted under sub-section (2) except in respect of such raw materials as may be prescribed. (5) A certificate of authorisation granted under this section may:- (a) be amended by the authority granting it if he is satisfied either on the application of the holder or, where no such application has been made, after due notice to the holder, that by reason of the holder having changed the name, place or nature of his business or the class or classes of goods bought, sold or man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent-Authorities have rightly held that the appellant was not in the business of manufacturing tea but was merely blending and packing tea, which does not amount to manufacturing of tea. We find substance in the said stand taken by the respondent-Authorities as the said view has been fortified by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Tara Agencies 2007 (6) SCC 429. 23. For the aforestated reasons assigned by the State in the impugned order passed as well as in the judgments delivered by the High Court, we cannot find fault with the impugned judgment and therefore, these appeals deserve dismissal. 24. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
