TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which the crude oil undergoes to radically change itself to marketable refined oil. The other contention raised by Mr. Swarup was that they had purchased the crude oil after payment of tax and hence they cannot be made liable to pay tax again for its sale. This contention has to be stated only to be rejected for the Act expressly provides imposition of multistage taxation under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 3(3)(b) of the Act. - Civil Appeal No. 10453 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 3-9-1998 - BHARUCHA S.P., MUKHERJEE M.K. AND NANAVATI G.T. JJ. R.B. Misra and K. Misra, Advocates, for the respondents. Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup and Ms. Prerna Swarup, Advocates, for the appellant. --------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firstly submitted that they were not liable to pay tax on the sale of refined oil for even after refinement it continues to retain its basic character as oil. According to Mr. Swarup, mere processing of the crude oil for its conversion to refined oil, cannot be said to be manufacture of new goods so as to make the appellant liable for tax thereupon under section 3(3)(b)(iii) of the Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1960] 11 STC 827; (1961) 2 SCC 14, Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239; (1986) 3 SCC 469 and State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt Sons [1992] 84 STC 497; (1993) Supp 1 SCC 222. 4.. In response Mr. Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of this Act; and (iii) goods manufactured by him by using the goods referred to in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). 6.. When the provisions of the above section are read in juxtaposition with the definition of the word manufacture it is abundantly clear that a dealer will be liable to pay tax on sale of any goods he manufactures by processing the goods he purchased by complying with the requirements of clause (ii) above. 7.. The word processing has, however, not been defined under the Act but it has been the subject-matter of interpretation by this Court in various cases including that of Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124 (SC); (1981) 1 SCC 653. Taking a cue from the definition of the word pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gative this Court held that refined groundnut oil (hydrogenated oil) continues to be groundnut oil notwithstanding that such oil does not possess the characteristic colour, or taste, odour, etc., of the raw groundnut oil. Indeed, the controversy in that case centred round the interpretation of the expression groundnut oil appearing in the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. Neither the expression manufacture nor the expression processing directly came up for interpretation in that case. In Sterling Foods [1986] 63 STC 239 (SC); (1986) 3 SCC 469, the question that arose for determination was whether shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to processing like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irstly, because it considered the definition of manufacture (which, of course, is identical with its definition under the Act) in the context of resale of goods as defined in that Act and secondly, because of the nature and extent of the process which the crude oil undergoes to radically change itself to marketable refined oil. 10.. The other contention raised by Mr. Swarup was that they had purchased the crude oil after payment of tax and hence they cannot be made liable to pay tax again for its sale. This contention has to be stated only to be rejected for the Act expressly provides imposition of multistage taxation under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 3(3)(b) of the Act. 11.. For the foregoing discussion the appeal fails and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
