TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Praveen Kumar, Advocates for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by S. B. SINHA J. Leave granted. Appellant herein deals in manufacture and sale of auto rickshaw. For the said purpose, it purchases body of auto rickshaw from M/s. Apollo Builders, a sister concern of M/s. Scooters India Ltd. and chassis thereof from M/s. Scooters India Ltd. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether mounting of the body of the auto rickshaw on the chassis thereof would amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(e-1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act", for short). It is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased "Vikram three wheeler chassis" upon issuing III-A form from M/s. Scooters India Ltd. It did not pay any purchase tax in respect of the purchases made from M/s. Appolo Builders. Appellant was held to be liable to pay purchase tax on the premise that upon mounting the body of auto rickshaw on the chassis and sale having not been made on the same condition and form, purchase tax was leviable. The contention of the appellant is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchasing dealer resells such goods within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or exports out of the territory of India, in the same form and condition in which he had purchased them; (iv) such goods are liable to be exempted under section 4-A of this Act." It has been noticed hereinbefore that in regard to the purchases made from M/s. Scooters India Ltd., form III-A has been utilised. Similar purchases of auto rickshaw body were made from Appolo Builders against issuance of form III-A prescribed in terms of rule 12-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, which, inter alia, provides for the following condition: "2. I further certify that our said firm has purchased for sale in the same condition . . . . . . . . . . (description of goods) against bill/cash memo No. . . . . . . . . . . dated . . . . . . . from M/s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place . . . . . Date. . . . . ." Entry at serial No. 43(1)(b) contained in the notification dated September 7, 1981 reads as under: "43(1)(b). Motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi cars, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, mopeds, motorettes, motor omni-buses, motor vans, motor lor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1997] 107 STC 468 in our opinion does not lay down the correct law. In that case the Tribunal proceeded on a wrong premise that on removal of nuts and bolts fixed, the chassis and body would get separated and the original position would be restored without their change in the structure, nature and identity. It was, in our opinion, not a relevant question. Tax is payable when the taxable event occurs. In construing a taxing statute, vis-a-vis, the taxable event, no hypothesis ordinarily should be raised. A commodity is identified by ordinary commercial parlance. Auto rickshaw is an auto rickshaw. It can be sold only as a combination of chassis and the body mounted thereupon, and not body or chassis separately. If it is so done, consequences may be different. Furthermore, the definition of "manufacture" under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is different from the one under the U. P. Act, which is as under: "'Manufacture' includes every processing of goods which bring into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity but shall not include such processing as may be notified by the State Government." A bare comparison of the definitions of the said term under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or breeze coke is taken which is compiled with the help of clay and molasses. Hence, in our opinion, coal briquettes is a different commercial commodity from coal. Moreover, even if it is not a different commercial commodity, the process of making coal briquettes will amount to a 'manufacture' as it is processing, treating or adapting coal. In our opinion, by the processing of coal to make coal briquettes, the coal-dust loses its identity. Coal briquettes and coal-dust are two different commodities in substance as well as in characteristics. The coal briquettes are altogether in different shape, form and moisture as well as characteristics, as compared to coal-dust." We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that a division Bench of this court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 3 SCC 338 See [2006] 145 STC 176 (SC)., in view of the provisions of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 had referred the question of interpretation of the words "in relation to such exports" to a larger Bench, noticing the decisions of this court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 2 SCC 47 See ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 'manufacture' in the section or chapter notes, it would come within the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) and such process would become liable to excise duty. The effect of this definition is that excise duty can be levied on activities which do not result in the production of a new commodity or where the raw material does not undergo such a transformation as to lose its original identity." The decision of this court in Pio Food Packers [1980] Supp SCC 174 See [1980] 46 STC (SC)., is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therein, this court was concerned with the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessee therein used to carry on business of manufacturing and selling of canned fruit. Having regard to the factual matrix involved therein it was held that there was no difference between pineapple fruit and the canned pineapple slices. Pio Food [1980] Supp SCC 174(1) was followed by this court in Sterling Foods [1986] 3 SCC 469 See [1980] 63 STC 239 (SC). Therein again the court was concerned with selling of shrimps. It was held: "Here in the present case, it was not disputed on behalf of the Revenue that the purchases of raw shrimps, prawns a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
