TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inium and allied products. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that bauxite is one of the major raw materials required for manufacturing aluminium, and the petitioner has got several mines within the State of Bihar in the districts of Lohardagga and Gumla from where it extracts bauxite and transports it to its manufacturing plant at Renukoot, U.P. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that being engaged in mining activities it was' covered by the definition of "dealer" within the meaning of the Act and was accordingly registered under the relevant provisions of the State Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner's case the quantity of bauxite extracted from its own mines being insufficient to meet its manufacturing requirement, it was obliged to purchase bauxite from other mine owners for use as direct raw material for manufacture of aluminium, at its plant. It accordingly applied for certificate for purchase of bauxite directly for use in the manufacture of aluminium at concessional rates. On an application made by it bauxite (for use in manufacture) was added on October 24, 1972 in the certificate No. RN 178/6A(1)(b) dated June 9, 1972 alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an end at that stage and later on the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, once again called the petitioner to show cause why the certificate issued in its favour under section 13(1)(b) of the Act be not cancelled on the ground that no manufacturing operations were carried on by it in this State. The petitioner appeared in response to the notice and after hearing its representative, the Assistant Commissioner by order, dated September 29, 1995 (annexure 10) finally revoked the certificate issued in its favour under section 13(1)(b) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner passed this order purportedly in exercise of the power of review as provided under section 47 of the Act. it is this order which comes under challenge in this writ petition. 7.. Mr. K.N. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, apart from taking an erroneous view of the requirements of section 13(1)(b) was without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Jain the provision of review under section 47 of the Act did not empower the Assistant Commissioner to cancel or recall a certificate earlier issued in the petitioner's favour under section 13(1)(b) of the Act. 8.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in law. On facts Mr. Anwar invited our attention to certain columns in the certificate which were left blank by the official issuing the certificate in order to contend that the petitioner was not described Is a manufacturer of goods, He, however, overlooked the fact that at other columns in the same certificate it was stated that the petitioner had an aluminium plant at Renukoot and that bauxite raised in Bihar was despatched to Renukoot for consumption at the plant. Moreover, if certain columns of the certificates were left blank by the issuing officials, I fail to see how the petitioner can be held responsible-for it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is incorrect to suggest that from the revenue records it did not appear that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of aluminium at Renukoot in U.P. 11.. Secondly, there is no legal sanction for the proposition that for issuance of the certificate under section 13(1)(b) the dealer must be "described" as a manufacturer of goods in the certificate of registration under section 14 of the Act. I, therefore, see no merit in the point raised by Mr. Anwar in support of the impugned order. 12.. Now coming to the main qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts amendment with effect from May 28, 1972 the relevant portion of section 5(2) was as follows: "that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom- (a) his turnover during that period on- (i) the sale of goods declared tax-free under section 6; (ii) sale to a registered dealerof goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of such dealer, as being intended for resale by him, or for use by him as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale; and of containers or other materials for the packing of goods of the class or classes so specified for sale: Provided that in the case of such sales a declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing the prescribed particulars on a prescribed form obtainable from the prescribed authority is furnished in the prescribed manner by the dealer who sells the goods: Provided further that where any goods specified in the certificate of registration are purchased by a registered dealer as being intended for resale by him or for use by him as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale, but are utili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision began considering the contention of the Revenue by making the following observation on the principle of statutory interpretation: "Now, if there is one principle of interpretation more well-settled than any other, it is that a statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to the plain natural meaning of its language and that no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. This rule of literal construction is firmly established and it has received judicial recognition in numerous cases. Crawford in his book on 'Construction of Statutes' (1940 Ed.), at page 269, explains the A rule in the following terms: 'Where the statute's meaning is clear and explicit, words cannot be interpolated. In the first place, in such a case they are not needed. If they should be interpolated, the statute would more than likely fail to express the legislative intent, as the thought intended to be conveyed might be altered by the addition of new words. They should not be interpolated even though the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s purchased as raw materials in the manufacture of goods, whether inside or outside Delhi, and sells the goods so manufactured in Delhi or outside, he would not fall within the second proviso and the sale to him would not be taxable in his hands." (Emphasis added) 17.. The Supreme Court decision in Polestar Electronic [1978] 41 STC 409 supports the submission made by Mr. Jain with full force. 18.. Again in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 239, the Supreme Court examined section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act which used the expression: ".............purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or............... (Emphasis* added). Here italicised. 19.. The assessee-company purchased goods from outside the State of Punjab for the purpose of use in manufacture of goods for sale but instead of doing so the assessee-company used those goods partly in manufacturing its own goods for sale and partly for doing job-work for other parties. The taxing authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m April 1, 1981, thus, clearly provided that concessional rates of purchase would be available only on the condition that the manufactured goods would be sold in Bihar or in course of inter-State trade or commerce though the manufacture itself might take place outside Bihar. Here italicised. 23.. Mr. Jain then pointed out that by an amendment introduced with effect from April 1, 1985 the restrictive words in section 13(1)(b) were deleted and from April 1, 1985 the provision of section 13(1)(b) reads as follows: "(1)(b): Sales to or purchases by a registered dealer of goods required by him directly for use in the manufacture or processing of any goods for sale." 24.. Mr. Jain submitted that from the nature of the amendment, the legislative intendment was clear and it was that no geographical limitation was to be placed on the situs of manufacture or sale of the manufactured goods. 25.. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is further supported from section 13 itself. It is to be seen that where the Legislature intended to impose any geographical restrictions, it said so in plain and unequivocal language. Thus clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 13 which dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
