The assembly of a fabricated body on a chassis qualifies as manufacture, incurring tax liability under specified sections of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

O R D E R

Application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned.

Application for substitution is allowed.

This matter arises from a long trajectory of litigations under the U.P. Sales Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). The dispute centers on “whether mounting a fabricated body on a three wheeler chassis amounts to manufacture” and creates a new commercial commodity, thereby attracting purchase tax liability under Section 3-AAAA of the Act.

2. The assessee (respondent herein) purchased chassis against Form-A, got bodies fabricated and mounted and sold the finished products as tempos. This triggered the Assessing Officer to levy purchase tax for creating and treating it as a new commodity. The assessee challenged the matter before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who by order dated 16.06.1988, set aside the same and remanded the matter back to the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.18 Assessing Officer for re-examination of the claim of the

09:57:38 IST Reason:

assessee in light of the proper verification and to pass a fresh assessment order consistent with law. The respondent- Assessee carried the matter in Second Appeal before the Tribunal which held in favour of the assessee and was affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Lucknow Bench by order dated

27.08.2009. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal.

3. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records and noticing that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kumar Motors, Bareilly vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [(2007) 4 SCC 140] whereunder it has been held that mounting auto rickshaw body on the chassis, a new product comes into being. It has also been held that the sale of chassis with mounted body would be selling a body which is in a different condition from the chassis or the body, thus same would be liable to purchase tax under Section 3, 4A(1)(a) of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid propositions of law, we are of the considered view that order of the Tribunal and High Court would not stand to test and, accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for passing further orders in this regard keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove as well as the law laid down by this Court.

4. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

5. Parties to bear their respective costs.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

………………………………………………………J.

(ARAVIND KUMAR)

…………………………………………………………J.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 09, 2025.

ITEM NO.124 COURT NO.17 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2773/2013 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, UP Appellant(s)

VERSUS M/S ASHISH AUTOMOBILES Respondent(s)

(IA No. 104442/2024 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 104443/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.)

Date : 09-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI For Appellant(s) Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned.

2. Application for substitution is allowed.

3. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.