TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle did not form a part of the sale price of the vehicle as defined in section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? (ii) When the opponent-assessee bought raw materials against a certificate in form 15 issued under section 11(1A)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and used the same in the manufacture of motor vehicles which were not sold but were capitalised, was the Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that such use of the raw materials did not amount to use for another purpose contrary to the certificate in form 15 within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Act?" 2.. The counsel are agreed that the first question is covered by this Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. [1985] 59 STC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) or the undertaking given in form 15 and consequently the provisions of section 14(1) of the Act were not attracted. 6.. The case of the department is that the provisions of section 11(1A) and the undertaking given by the assessee in form 15 are in absolute terms and, therefore, unless the motor cars manufactured with the use of raw materials and/or components so purchased were actually sold, the assessee was in violation of the provisions of section 11(1A) and undertaking given in form 15 and consequently liable to differential duty/tax under section 14(1). Section 14(1), it was stated, was very clear as to its contents. It provided that if an assessee had made purchases under section 11 or section 12 by giving a declaration in form 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terlinked with the carrying on of the business, that it could not be held that the cars were put to use other than contemplated in the certificate. Besides relying on the Tribunal's order, Shri Shah invited the court's attention to a Gujarat High Court decision in Ruby Laboratories v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 27 STC 326. The assessee in that case was manufacturing medicines. Samples of medicines were supplied free to the doctors with a view to promote sales. The question arose whether the distribution of medicines by way of free samples constituted a use different from the use contemplated in the certificate so as to attract the penal provisions of section 36. It was held that that distribution of medicines by way of free samples fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn under section 32 which he is to furnish next thereafter: ........................ " It is not necessary to reproduce form 15 as the form contained nothing more than that was provided in section 11(1A). Form 15, it may be stated, was subsequently amended as a result of which the undertaking about the sale of goods, as a fact, was made explicit. An attempt was made on behalf of the assessee to suggest that but for the amendment the undertaking was not so rigid. Apart from the fact that the amendment in form 15 merely uses the word of emphasis section 14(1) continues to remain couched in the same language. Section 11(1A) clearly provides that the assessee will be entitled to pay tax at a concessional rate on its purchases provided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articles so manufactured. This is what this Court has observed in [1985] 59 STC 10 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. East Asiatic Commercial Co.) in paragraph 19 at page 17 as under: "...What is the meaning to be given to the phrase 'contrary to such certificates?' In all certificates given under sections 11 and 12 save and except for the certificates which are required to be given under section 12(c) and 12(e), the dealer concerned states that he will either use the goods in a certain manner or will resell the goods or export them, etc. In the case of some certificates the period within which the goods have to be so dealt with, is also prescribed. There is therefore a contravention of such a certificate when the goods are used for another pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors is always done with a view to advertise and promote sale of medicines. Therefore such an activity has direct nexus with the sale. Use of motor cars in one's own business, on the other hand, may be necessary irrespective of the fact whether the assessee manufactures motor cars. Besides the Supreme Court decision [1960] 11 STC 757 (Wadeyar, Sales Tax Officer v. Daulatram Rameshwarlal), was not noticed by the Gujarat High Court in that decision. 10.. In the above view of the matter, we do not think that Gujarat High Court decision is of any help to the assessee. Accordingly, following the ratio of this Court's judgment in [1985] 59 STC 10 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. East Asiatic Commercial Co.), we hold that the provisions of section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
