IMPORTANT POINT
Stainless steel wire is not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of section 14 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956.

Headnote:(a) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 14(iv) – The expression “that is to say” is used in Section 14 apparently to mean to exhaustively enumerate the kinds of goods in a given list – The purpose of an enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point in a series of sales would be to indicate the types of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for a series of sales. (Para 26)
        (1976) 1 SCC 834 – Relied upon
        (b) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 14(iv), entry no. (ix) and (xv) – The expression “of any of the above categories” in entry No. (ix) would only relate to steel and alloy produced for any of the materials mentioned in item nos. (i) to (viii) – “Stainless steel wire” cannot be read into item no. (xv) (“wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper”) – Stainless steel wire, held, not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of section 14. (Paras 28, and 33)
        (1976) 1 SCC 834; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 413 – Relied upon
        (c) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 14(iv) – Each item specified in Section 14(iv) forms a separate species for each series of sales – If iron bars were drawn into “wire”, such wire shall be a different taxable commodity. (Para 30)
        (d) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 14(iv), entry no. (ix) and (xv) – When the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the words used in the statute – Therefore, the expression “Wire rods and wires” mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression “tools, alloy and special steels” of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression “Iron and Steel”. (Paras 34 and 35)
        (1976) 1 SCC 834; (2002) 7 SCC 273 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        Interpretation of entry no. (ix) and (xv) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is the issue in this appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Provision of Section 15 of the Central Act does not apply to the facts of the present appeals.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether the ‘stainless steel wire’ falls under the category, “tools, alloys and special steels of any of the above categories” enumerated in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the “Central Act”) and therefore the following question emerges for our consideration:-

“Whether stainless steel wire, a product of the appellant, on a proper reading of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act along with the qualifying words `that is to say’ would fall under the category “tools, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories” enumerated in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) or under entry no. (xv) of same clause (iv)”

3. In all these appeals identical issues are involved. We therefore, proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common Judgment and Order. In order to arrive at a finding on the issue raised, it will be necessary to set out certain facts leading to filing of the present appeals.

4. The appellant is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of “stainless steel wires”. An assessment order was passed under Rule 41(8) of the UP Trade Tax Rules for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short “the UP Act”) as well as under the Central Act. As per the said assessment order, the tax on sales of “stainless steel wire” was levied @ 4% and sales covered by Form 3-kh were taxed @ 2%.

5. The respondent, however, thereafter held that the sales of “stainless steel wire” has wrongly been taxed @ 4% treating the same as a “declared commodity” and that in fact “stainless steel wire” is not a declared commodity because it is outside the ambit of “Iron and Steel”, which is a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Central Act.

6. In view of the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent, a proposal was sent to the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad requesting him for permission to re-open the case of the appellant for the assessment year 1999-2000.

7. The Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad issued a notice dated 22.03.2006 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the permission should not be granted to the assessing authority for re-opening of the case under Section 21(2) of the UP Act.

8. Respondent No. 3 on 24.3.2006 issued a notice under Section 10-B of the U.P. Act for revising the assessment order passed for the assessment year 2000-01. The appellant states that similar notices for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 were also issued to the appellant by Respondent No. 3.

9. The appellant filed its reply dated 27.3.2006 to the notice dated 24.3.2006 and, inter alia, stated that “stainless steel wire” is a declared commodity under clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act, hence in view of Section 15 thereof, no tax can be imposed on the declared commodities in excess of 4%. The appellant had also submitted identical replies to the notices relating to assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.

10. After considering the reply as furnished by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad by its order dated 27.03.2006 granted permission to the assessing authority to re-open the case under Section 21(2) of the UP Act for the assessment year 1999-2000.

11. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid notice, the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 770 of 2006, wherein, the respondent filed a counter affidavit. The Allahabad High Court, thereafter heard the counsel appearing for the parties and by its judgment and order dated 21.05.2010 dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the “stainless steel wire” is not covered under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 456

IMPORTANT POINT Stainless steel wire is not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of section 14 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Stainless steel wire is not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of section 14 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956.