TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and needles . It is the case of petitioner that they purchase the raw needles in bulk from the market and then these raw needles are subjected to sterilisation process by use of chemicals in their processing plant. It is only after this process of sterilisation is undertaken by the petitioner in respect of those raw needles in their processing plant, they become a sterilised needle and emerge as drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for being sold in open market as what is popularly known as sterilised needles . It is stated by the petitioner that they have established their industrial unit (sterilisation processing plant) in Pithampur (M.P.) by investing nearly Rs. 70 lacs for this purpose. 3.. The petitioner is a dealer und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd correctness of the aforesaid order of S.L.C. By order, dated August 11, 2000 (annexure P-14), the appellate authority allowed the appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashirwad Ispat Udyog v. State Level Committee [1999] 112 STC 207, the appellate authority was of the view that the definition of word manufacture cannot be given restricted meaning so as to deny the benefit of exemption to the petitioner's unit. It was held that the process of sterilisation of needle has to be included as falls within the meaning of the word manufacture so as to entitle the petitioner to claim its benefit from non-payment of sales tax in terms of exemption notification. It was accordingly, directed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel with Shri Sunil Jain for petitioner and Shri Prakash Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State. 5.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned order, dated September 30, 2002 (annexure P-1). 6.. In my considered view, the reasoning that led to rejection of petitioner's case or I may say which was made the basis for rejection is not legally sustainable. It is not in dispute and rather it is found as a fact (inspection note) that petitioner has set up the processing plant for sterilising the raw needle and that it does undertake this process on regular basis. Once, this fact is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in determining the question whether petitioner is entitled for grant of sales tax exemption on the sterilised needle, or not? 8.. As observed supra, position would have been different, if it had been found in inspection of petitioner's unit that no processing plant or machinery existed on the spot. In other words, if the finding on inspection had been that no processing activity was installed by the petitioner, then in such event, the State was justified in declining the benefit of sales tax exemption to the petitioner. It is for the simple reason that when there was no plant found on the spot which could be used for processing raw needles into sterilised one then there arise no case for granting any exemption. Such is not the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
