SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th October 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 857 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sri Narain Andley and Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. for Appellant; Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, for Respondents.
CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 - S. 8(3)(B), R. 13 - INTERPRETATION - GOODS INTENDED FOR USE IN MANUFACTURE OR PROCESSING OF GOODS FOR SALE - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a cotton textile manufacturing company, applied for registration as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and requested that certain goods be specified in the certificate as being intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The Sales Tax Officer granted the certificate, but later cancelled the specification in respect of certain goods, including drawing instruments, photographic materials, building materials, and electricals. The appellant challenged the cancellation by way of a writ petition in the High Court, which dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" in S. 8(3)(b) of the Act read with R. 13. The Court held that the expression should be given a broad interpretation to include all processes which are directly related to the actual production of goods, and that goods intended for use as equipment in such processes would qualify for special treatment under S. 8(1).
Issues: Whether the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" in S. 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with R. 13, should be given a narrow or broad interpretation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" should be given a broad interpretation to include all processes which are directly related to the actual production of goods, and that goods intended for use as equipment in such processes would qualify for special treatment under S. 8(1). The Court reasoned that a narrow interpretation of the expression would lead to anomalies and would exclude goods which are essential for the commercial production of goods.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and directed that the order of the Sales Tax Officer be modified by deleting the words "drawing materials, photographic materials and electricals" from paragraph 4 of the order.
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Messrs, J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. is a public limited Company having its registered office at Kanpur. The Company manufactures for sale cotton textiles, tiles and other commodities. The Company applied on June 21, 1957, requesting the Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, Kanpur, to register it as a dealer under S. 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and prayed that the following goods which it ordinarily purchased in the course of inter-State -trade may be specified in the certificate:
"Cotton staple fibre, yarn, wastes, coal, petrol, machniery, electricals, spares, hardwares, dyes and colours, chemicals, auxiliaries, oils, lubricants, tallows, starches, woollen clothings, gums, clays, salt belting; bobbins, shuttles; wooden accessories and other mill stores for manufacturing cloth, yarn, tiles and paints, etc. " The Sales Tax Officer granted the certificate as registration was later modified and the following additional categories of goods were specified :
"Industrial gases, drawing instruments, photographic materials, packing materials including wood, paper, straw and cardboards, etc., and building materials including iron, steel, cement, lime, fire bricks and refractories."
2. Thereafter by notice dated July 19, 1961, the Sales Tax Officer cancelled the specification in respect of coal and called upon the Company to show cause why the certificate or registration be not amended so as to exclude therefrom "drawing instruments, photographic materials, building materials including iron, steel, cement and lime and certain goods covered under the term electricals." The Company showed cause against the notice and contended that all the articles specified in the certificate were required in the manufacture and processing of goods for sale. By order dated August 9, 1962, the Sales Tax Officer directed that from the registration certificate the following items be deleted:
"Drawing material, photographic material, building material including lime and cement (except cement used in manufacture of tiles for re-sale), electricals, iron and steel and coal", and called upon the Company to surrender the certificate of registration within three days for making the proposed amendments.
3. The Company then applied to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated August 9, 1962. At the trial, counsel for the Company did not press the petition in respect of iron, steel and coal, Counsel for the Company submitted that the remaining items were covered by S. 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with R. 13 framed under S.13 of the Act, and on that account the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer was illegal and that in any event the items in question having been included in the certificate of registration after due enquiry as required by the statute, the Sales Tax Officer acted without jurisdiction in seeking to make the amendments. The High Court negatived the contention of the Company that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to revise the certificate of registration issued after due enquiry, and rejected the petition holding that drawing instruments photographic materials, colours, chemicals, electricals, machinery and building materials such as cement, lime are not comprehended in the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" within the meaning of S. 8(3)(b) read with R. 13. Against the order dismissing the petition, the Company has appealed to the Court.
4. Counsel for the Company has very properly not sought to raise the contention that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to modify the certificate of registration, merely because the certificate as originally granted was issued after due enquiry. Under S. 7(4) of the Act a certificate of registration granted under S.7(1) may be cancelled by the authority granting it, inter alia, for any sufficient reason. If on account of some error, th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.