Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1561 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTExemption from payment of Entry tax - Whether the revisionist is a manufacturer of Compressed Natural Gas (C.N.G.) and Piped Natural Gas (P.N.G.) in terms of section 2 of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act 2000 read with section 2(ee) and section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 so as to be eligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax on capital goods or machinery brought into the local area from any place outside that local area for use in manufacturing of the aforesaid C.N.G. and P.N.G., under the Notification dated 18.2.2003 issued under section 4-B of the Act 2000? Held that:- The Tribunal has gravely erred in being persuaded by the definition of ‘Natural Gas’ as contained in the petroleum and Natural Gas Laboratories Board Act 2006, consequently, it has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The process involved in making C.N.G. and P.N.G. involves its manufacture and the product has a different commercial identify. Even if it did not have a different commercial identity, even then, it would still be a ‘manufacture’ within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act 2000 read with section 2(e-1) of the Act 1948. The Court also finds that the revisionist has been issued a license under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 made under the Central Excise Act for operating as a manufacturer of excisable goods at “C.N.G. Mother Station etc.”, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which also goes to show that he is a manufacturer even as per the definition of the term under the Excise Act and the Rules thereunder, but the Court is not persuaded only by this document, rather, it is persuaded by the reasoning already given - also the observation in the order of the Tribunal that by depositing the entry tax the revisionist had admitted its liability in this regard, is misconceived, especially as there can be no estoppel against law, considering the fact that the Notification dated 18.2.2003 had been issued under section 4- B of the Act 2000 and had the force of law. It is held that the revisionist is a manufacturer of C.N.G. and P.N.G. and consequently it is entitled to the benefit of notification dated 18.2.2003 - revision allowed.
|