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

2023 Supreme(SC) 17

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
AMD Industries Limited (Earlier known as M/s. Ashoka Metal Décor Pvt. Ltd.) - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2013
Decided on : 09-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Adv. Ms. Jayati Chitale, Adv. Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Mr. V. M. Vishnu, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Exemption provisions are to be read as they are and to be construed literally and should be given a literal meaning.

Headnote:

Taxation – U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Section 4-A (5) – Exemption from payment of tax – Appellant had sought eligibility certificate on the ground of diversification – In case of exemption notification/exemption provision, same is required to be construed literally and person claiming exemption must satisfy all conditions of exemption provision – In case of “diversification” goods manufactured by diversification shall be different from goods manufactured before such diversification – With passage of time, due to advancement in technology, if there is a replacement of old machinery with new machinery for improvement in quality and quantity of a product, at the most, it can be said to be expansion and/or modernization, but it cannot be said to be “diversification”, which is “manufacturing of goods different from goods manufactured before such diversification” – In a case of “diversification”, effect has to be that quality and quantity of product should have been improved and/or increased but if ultimate use is same, product manufactured on use of modern and/or advanced technology cannot be said to be manufacturing different goods for claiming exemption from payment of trade tax – Giving literal meaning to Section 4-A, it cannot be said that appellant is entitled to exemption as claimed – High Court has not committed any error in refusing to grant exemption to appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 9)

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. I.A. No. 118667 of 2021 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to change its name in the cause title from M/s. Ashoka Metal Décor Pvt. Ltd. to AMD Industries Limited and the I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No. 275 of 2004 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) and the Assessing Officer holding that for the goods manufactured, the appellant is not entitled to the exemption under Section 4-A (5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), the manufacturer – original revisionist has preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 The appellant herein established the unit for manufacture of “Spun Line Crown Cork” in the year 1986, used as one of the packing materials of the 'glass bottles'. The appellant submitted an application on 24.05.2000 for granting eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the Act before the Divisional Level Committee for manufacture of “double Lip Dry Blend Crown” under the program of diversification.

3.2 On the basis of the joint spot inquiry consisting of two members committee, the appellant was granted the eligibility certificate under ‘modernisation’ instead of eligibility certificate under ‘diversification’ scheme.

3.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that if the goods manufactured would have been considered as a new product under the diversification scheme, the appellant was entitled to the exemption under Section 4-A(5) of the Act. The appellant was denied the exemption under Section 4-A(5) of the Act. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed under Section 4-A of the Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal contending inter alia that the process of manufacture and the machineries used for both the products (existing and the new) are different.

3.4 It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the existing (old) product cannot be manufactured on the new installed machine and vice-a-versa, the new product cannot be manufactured on the old machines. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that one of the major raw materials for both the products are not the same and that ultimate use of both the products are different.

3.5 It was submitted that under the term “modernization” only those units fall, which by the modern technical produce the same goods and the scheme of “modernization” do not apply on the units which produce different goods.

3.6 The appeal preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed. The second appeal before the Tribunal also came to be dismissed. It was specifically held that the nature of goods being produced under the modern technology is not different than the goods produced by the unit earlier, as both the produced material are used in packing the bottles of cold drinks and therefore, as the goods manufactured are not different but the same and used for the same purpose, the appeals came to be dismissed. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the revision application before the High Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order, and, hence the present appeal.

4. Shri Atul Yeshwant Chitale, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is with respect to the interpretation of Explanation 5 to Section 4-A(5) of the Act, which grants exemption from payment of trade tax to units, which had undertaken ‘diversification’ in their units on or after 31.03.1995.

4.1 It is submitted that the appellant is a manufacturer of crown corks used for sealing glass bottles. Initially, it was producin


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