TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any "manufacturing". Unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. The Revenue authority in the present case is proceeding on the basis of a binding legal precedent and not merely on its own opinion. There can be estoppel against law. Even if eligibility certificate was issued, the Revenue authority can certainly act on established legal position. - W.P. (C) Nos. 3854 of 2008 , W.P. (C) Nos. 1070, 1070, 1759, 1761, 2143, . 2384, 4941 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2012 - GOEL A.K. C.J. AND KOTISWAR SINGH N., J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme and the petitioner applied for certificate for entitlement under the said Scheme which was granted on September 4, 2006 for the period from December 22, 2000 to March 31, 2007. The Superintendent of Taxes, Karimganj, vide letter dated September 11, 2008 asked the petitioner to explain why the certificate and entitlement would not be revoked with effect from May 1, 2005, as stone crushing activities undertaken by the petitioner did not amount to manufacturing which was a condition precedent for grant of exemption. The petitioner offered the proposal but vide order dated June 7, 2008, certificate of entitlement granted to the petitioner has been revoked. According to the petitioner, the order is arbitrary as activities of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The very same question came up for consideration in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC); [2003] 1 SCC 70 in the context of question referred to the High Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, i.e. (page 80 in 129 STC): Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, was the Tribunal justified in holding that crushing of boulders resulting in mental of different sizes ordinarily known as 'gitti' does not amount to manufacture? The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that no manufacturing was involved and, therefore, the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s into final product of polished marble slabs was held to involve manufacturing . In Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1997] 10 SCC 717, application of character or use test was held to be permissible to determine whether manufacturing was involved. In a judgment of this court in Data Plus Info Channel v. State of Assam [2013] 58 VST 262 (Gauhati) in W.P. (C) No. 4196 of 2010 decided on September 17, 2012 cutting of paper from paper roll, etc., was held to involve manufacturing . The question whether a process amounts to manufacturing has been dealt with in several judgments including in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 401 (SC); [1989] 179 ITR 317 (SC); [1989] 3 SCC 488. While the principle for determinin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the commodities before and after the processing-placed before the court in a subsequent case. These opinions are, of course, relevant and would be amongst the various factors to be taken into account in deciding the question. In the present case, the question being covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court on the same item, it is not open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any manufacturing . No doubt a Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. R.C. Construction [1996] 222 ITR 658 (Gauhati), has held that making of chips from big boulders amount to manufacturing , but the said judgment canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC); [2003] 1 SCC 70. We, thus, are unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. The Revenue authority in the present case is proceeding on the basis of a binding legal precedent and not merely on its own opinion. There can be estoppel against law. Even if eligibility certificate was issued, the Revenue authority can certainly act on established legal position. In view of above, we are unable to interfere with the impugned action. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Department itself was under the impression that manufacturing activity was involved in the process and had taken a conscious decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
