IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. – Respondent
Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.36 of 2021, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.54 of 2021
Decided on : 24-01-2024
capital goods - assessment of cello as capital goods under Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Section 2(f) - (iii) - storage tank
Fact of the Case:
The revisions were in relation to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 against the order passed by the Tribunal. The question of law was whether the cello used by the assessee were capital goods or merely usable containers used for sale of the ink manufactured by the assessee.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the cello is an apparatus that is fitted to the plant and machinery where the final product is stored, and once the cello is filled up, the same is removed from the plant and machinery and it is replaced with another cello. The fact that the cello is directly sent to the customers for consumption would not take away from the fact that it is used as a storage device for the manufactured ink. Mere fact that the cello is a moveable apparatus that is sent to the customers, would not take away from the fact that it is only a storage tank in the factory. This by itself makes it an essential part of the manufacturing process and would qualify it under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act.
Issues: Assessment of cello as capital goods under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's finding that the cello is an essential part of the manufacturing process and qualifies as a storage tank under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act.
Final Decision: Both the revisions were dismissed by the Court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
2. Present revisions are in relation to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 against the order dated November 27, 2019 passed by the Tribunal.
3. Both the revisions were admitted by this Court on the following question of law:
4. Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has taken the Court through the entire order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the definition of “capital goods” as per Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.) means any plant and machinery as also apparatus, tool and appliances used for “manufacture or processing of any goods”. He has submitted that even though storage tank is included in the said definition in clause (iii) of Section 2(f) of the Act, however the Cello in question is not a fixed part of the plant and machinery and is an apparatus used for supply of the ink, that is already manufactured, to the customers.
Once a customer uses the said ink, the Cello is returned to the factory and is once again attached to the plant that fills the cello again. He has further submitted that one would see that certain goods have been excluded specifically from the definition in Section 2(f) of the Act such as vehicles used for transporting the goods or passengers or both. It is his submission that the Cello is an apparatus used only for transporting and cannot be treated as a part of plant and machinery.
5. Per contra, Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee/respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has come to a particular fact finding that the Cello is an intricate part of the manufacturing process which is attached to the machinery wherein the manufactured ink is directly stored. He has further submitted that the Cello being moveable in nature will not prevent it for being treated as capital goods. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow v. Ambuja Cement Limited, reported in 2018 (8) GSTL 161 (All) is relied upon by him. He has further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton SPG & WVG Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur reported in 1997 (91) E.L.Y. 34 (S.C.) to emphasise that if a particular apparatus is an integral part relating to manufacture of goods without which that process or activity of manufacture would not be possible, it should be treated as an apparatus that is “in connection with” manufacture, or “in relation to” manufacture.
Analysis and Conclusion
6. Before delving into the controversy in the instant case, I feel it is important to extract Section 2(f) of the Act herein:
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context;
(a) …
(b) …
(c) …
(d) …
(e) …
(f) “capital goods” means any plant, machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tool, appliance or electrical installation used for manufacture or processing of any goods for sale by the dealer and includes:-
(i) components, spare parts and accessories of such plant, machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tool, appliance or electrical installation;
(ii) moulds and dies;
(iii) storage tank;
(iv) pollution control equipment;
(v) refractory and refractory materials;
(vi) tubes and pipes and fittings thereof,
(vii) lab equipments, instruments and accessories,
(viii) machinery, loader, equipment for lifting or moving goods within factory premises, or
(ix) generator and boiler used in manufacture of goods for sale by him but for the purpose of section 13, does not include:-
(i) air-conditioning units or air conditioners, refrigerators, air coolers, fans, and air circulators if not connected with manufacturing process;
(ii)
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval
The court's decision emphasized the interpretation of the definition of 'capital goods' under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and the application of the definition to the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, focusing on jurisdictional errors, perversity, and procedural irregularities. The court emphasized th....
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition.
The revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act are distinct from assessment powers, allowing for the correction of illegalities without infringing on the assessment of escaped turnover.
The jurisdiction of the Collector under the Central Excise Act does not extend to revising final orders of the Appellate Authority.
The Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revisional powers under Section 263 if the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, necessitating a fresh examination of k....
The Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revisional powers under Section 263 only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, requiring a thorough examination of the ....
Tax exemption for HDPE woven fabrics requires actual levy of additional duty; nil rate does not equate to exemption under sales tax law.
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.