SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
M/s. B.N. Industries Pvt. Ltd., rep. B Through Their Director Sri Bimal Kumar Nahata, S/o. Lt. Bachhraj Nahata – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Finance Taxation Department and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.6977 Of 2015, WP(C) No.6978 Of 2015
Decided On : 12-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Saraf, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Kalita, SC, Industries Department, Assam; Mr. B. Choudhury, SC, Finance & Taxation Deptt.

Tax exemption cannot be granted if the activity does not meet the statutory definition of manufacture, as established in relevant tax laws, specifically that purification does not transform water into a distinct commercial commodity.

Headnote:(A) Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 109(4) - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Industrial Policy Resolution, 1997 - Issue of eligibility for tax remission on sale of packaged drinking water - The petitioner was denied tax remission for packaged drinking water as it was held that processing raw water into packaged drinking water does not constitute manufacture under the relevant statutes - The definition of manufacture under Section 2(30) of the Act of 2003 mandates transformation into a new article which the process does not achieve. (Paras 34, 40, 44, 50, 52)

(B) Taxation - Eligibility certificates and their constraints - The issuance of an Eligibility Certificate by the Industries Department does not automatically confer entitlement to tax benefits without compliance with statutory definitions and conditions. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, sought tax remission for packaged drinking water, supported by an Eligibility Certificate issued under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1997. The State relied on circulars asserting that the conversion of raw water does not amount to manufacture.

Findings of Court:
The court found that conversion of raw water into packaged drinking water lacks the requisite statutory definition of manufacture, leading to the denial of tax remission claimed by the petitioner.

Issues: The main legal question was whether the activity of bottling drinking water constituted manufacture under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that mere purification of water does not transform it into a distinct product, thus failing to meet the statutory definition of manufacture. Additionally, the principle of promissory estoppel could not be invoked against the legislative provisions outlined in the Act.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. discussion on the introduction and nature of petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. eligibility for sales tax exemption and its conditions are defined. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's claims based on industrial policy and issued certificates. (Para 9 , 10)
4. importance of definitions of 'manufacture' in sales tax exemption context. (Para 11 , 12 , 40 , 41)
5. examination of eligibility in relation to definitions and compliance under the imminent statute. (Para 14 , 28 , 32)
6. eligibility certificate's issuance impacts entitlement to benefits. (Para 22 , 36 , 44)
7. arguments presented advocating for tax remission opportunities. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. final decision on whether packaged drinking water qualifies as manufacture under the law. (Para 35)
9. court dismisses the writ petitions as having no merit. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Saraf, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Industries Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of Assam.

2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together taking into account the similarity of the issues involved. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of WP(C) No.6977/2015 which relates to the assessment year 2005-2006 and WP(C) No.6978/2015 which relates to the assessment years 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09; 2009-2010 and 2010-11.

3. The facts as could be discerned from the writ petitions are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act of 2003’) and the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). The Government of Assam had formulated an Industrial Policy in the year 1997 with the goal to provide an effective thrust to expeditious promotion and growth of all industries with a view to creating a strong industrial base and employment opportunities in various directions. In the said Industrial Policy of 1997, the State of Assam had formulated a package of incentives for promotion and setting up of industrial units and revitalization of sick industrial units in the State. The period of said new package of incentives was to be with effect from 01.04.1997 and to remain in operation for a period of 5 years or till such time as the Government may think fit and proper. The Government also reserved its right to make any amendment to the said Scheme. In terms with Clause 4.2 of the said Industrial Policy Resolution, 1997, the effective date was 01.04.1997 and from that date the 1991 Incentive Scheme under the Industrial Policy, 1991 ceased to be operative unless otherwise provided. Clause 4.3 (ii) stipulated what is an Eligible Unit. In terms with the said definition, an Eligible Unit means only New Units set up on or after 01.04.1997 and existing units undergoing expansion, modernization, diversification at the same place in the State of Assam on or after 01.04.1997 by making additional investment on fixed capital by not less than 25%. The said Industrial Policy Resolutions further mandated the terms and conditions under which an Eligible Unit would be entitled to the incentives. Clause 4.4 stipulates the Eligibility. Clause 4.5 relates to Eligibility Certificate. This certificate of eligibility is a certificate which is required to be issued by the Udyog Sahayak of the Directorate of Industries/District Industries Centre for SSI sector and the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (AIDC) for the medium and large sector industries. The said certificate is to be issued after ensuring that all the criteria for eligibility have been fulfilled to the full satisfaction of the concerned Udyog Sahayak. In terms with sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4.5, no right or claim for any incentive under the Scheme shall be deemed to have been conferred by the Scheme

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top