JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This revision has been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2008”) read with Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2007”), assailing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench 3, Kanpur dated 01.06.2009 in Second Appeal No.12 of 2008 for assessment year 2004-05 (Entry Tax).

3. This revision was admitted on 09.09.2009 on the following questions of law:-

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was covered within the expression 'Manufacturing Dealer' as used in the Notification dated 18.2.2003 (Annexure-2 to the Revision Application) issued under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000?”

4. Facts in nutshell are that the revisionist is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Assessee was registered dealer both under the Act of 2008 and under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as “CST Act”).

5. The Assessee is engaged in manufacture of reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalyst preparation. It purchased business of catalyst from M/s. ICI India Ltd., now known as M/s. AKZO Nobel India Ltd. ("AKZO Nobel") in the year 2002 through Business Transfer Agreement. The land of manufacturing unit could not be transferred to purchaser company. The dealer entered into a Toll Conversion Agreement (TCA) dated 02.12.2022 with M/s. AKZO Nobel for processing and manufacturing of finished goods, for the raw material and capital goods purchased and supplied by revisionist. AKZO Nobel was restricted from using plant and machinery and raw material for any other purpose other than manufacturing the products for revisionist. The liability of VAT was discharged by revisionist, and the excise invoices for the transactions issued by AKZO Nobel, clearly mentioned that it was on account of the revisionist-company.

6. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessee purchased machinery, plant, parts and accessories worth Rs.1,27,37,568/-from outside State of U.P. The goods were imported and were installed at the site of M/s ICI at Panki Site, 2-B, Kanpur for use by M/s ICI to manufacture catalyst exclusively for the Assessee. The machinery brought into the State were liable to entry tax. The State Government exercising power under Section 4-B of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 issued a Notification dated 08.02.2003, exempting from entry tax all class of small, medium and large manufacturing dealers, on entry of capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts for use in their manufacture.

7. An assessment was made on 29.03.2007 for assessment year 2004-05 (Entry Tax), the assessing authority disallowed the claim of exemption made by Assessee and valued the plant, machinery etc. at Rs.1,53,65,061/-against disclosed value of Rs.1,27,37,568/-. It was taxed @ 5% and a demand of entry tax was made for Rs.7,68,253/-. Against the assessment order, a First Appeal No.535 of 2007 was preferred by the Assessee, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, a second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal being Second Appeal No.12 of 2008, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2009, hence the present revision.

8. Learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that catalyst was manufactured by M/s ICI on job work basis and other charges, and the machinery in question had been actually used by M/s ICI. According to learned counsel word “Manufacture” or “Manufacturing” or “Manufacturer” have not been defined under the Act of 2007. However, Section 2(2) of the Act provides that words and expressions used in this Act, but not defined shall have meaning assigned to them in