CHRESTIEN MICA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-1961-1-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
January 09,1961
CHRESTIEN MICA INDUSTRIES
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KESHAV SHEET GRIH PVT LTD VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2002-10-116] [REFERRED TO]INDIA CINE AGENCIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-2008-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PAWAN AGGARWAL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
FARRUKHABAD COLD STORAGE P LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1978-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corpn LTD VS. Commissioner of Income Tax [LAWS(CAL)-2005-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX THE BOMBAY VS. ABDUL REHMAN ALLADIN [LAWS(GJH)-1962-11-11] [REFERRED]
SHV ENERGY SOUTH EAST LTD VS. STATE INVESTMENT PROMOTION BOARD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE UDAIPUR VS. BIKANER GYPSUM LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. PRATIMA BHARGAVA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SESA GOA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHIV OIL AND DAL MILL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
P.R.P. GRANITES VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-374] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-1981-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
TARAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1979-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1994-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1986-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANSONS AND CO [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-260] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHAW WALLACE AND CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1990-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-419] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDUS COSMECEUTICALS [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SESA GOA LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2004-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GOMATESH GRANITES [LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SESA GOA INDIA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-190] [REFERRED TO]
S B COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1986-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
S B COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES P LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1987-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ELG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(AR)-2013-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High court of Patna in a Sales Tax Reference made under section 25 (1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act of 1947 amended by Bihar Act VI of 1949.
(2.)The appellant is an incorporated company carrying on its business at Domchanch in the Hazaribagh District in the State of Bihar. It was assessed to sales tax in regard to the four quarters of the assessment year 1948-49 under section 13 (4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. According to the Sales Tax Officer the tax was leviable on its sales of mica which was produced or manufactured in Bihar. Before the Sales Tax Officer it was unsuccessfully contended on behalf of the appellant that the Amendment Act having come into force on October i, 1948, it could not affect the sales of mica before that date, but this plea was not accepted by that Officer and the tax was levied for all the quarters. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the appeal was dismissed. The matter was then taken in revision to the Board of Revenue and was allowed on the ground that the process of mining mica which was the commodity sold by the appellant company could not be said to be a process of production or manufacture within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the amended Act. The Board held that splitting up of mica did not constitute a process of manufacture because the constitution of the mica remained just the same, the only difference being that there was change in its dimensions. Against that order at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax a case was stated to the High court and the following question was referred :-
"Whether the assessee has been rightly taxed under the newly added proviso to section 2 (g) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act for the two quarters from the 1st of October, 1948, to the 31st of March, 1949. "
(3.)Two points were decided by the High court, (1) as to whether there was proper reference, and (2) whether it could be said that the sale was of goods which had been manufactured in the State of Bihar. Onboth these points the decision was against the appellant and this appeal is directed against that judgment and order.
(2.)The appellant is an incorporated company carrying on its business at Domchanch in the Hazaribagh District in the State of Bihar. It was assessed to sales tax in regard to the four quarters of the assessment year 1948-49 under section 13 (4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. According to the Sales Tax Officer the tax was leviable on its sales of mica which was produced or manufactured in Bihar. Before the Sales Tax Officer it was unsuccessfully contended on behalf of the appellant that the Amendment Act having come into force on October i, 1948, it could not affect the sales of mica before that date, but this plea was not accepted by that Officer and the tax was levied for all the quarters. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the appeal was dismissed. The matter was then taken in revision to the Board of Revenue and was allowed on the ground that the process of mining mica which was the commodity sold by the appellant company could not be said to be a process of production or manufacture within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the amended Act. The Board held that splitting up of mica did not constitute a process of manufacture because the constitution of the mica remained just the same, the only difference being that there was change in its dimensions. Against that order at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax a case was stated to the High court and the following question was referred :-
"Whether the assessee has been rightly taxed under the newly added proviso to section 2 (g) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act for the two quarters from the 1st of October, 1948, to the 31st of March, 1949. "
(3.)Two points were decided by the High court, (1) as to whether there was proper reference, and (2) whether it could be said that the sale was of goods which had been manufactured in the State of Bihar. Onboth these points the decision was against the appellant and this appeal is directed against that judgment and order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.