STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHALAXMI STORES
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
November 20,2002
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appellant
VERSUS
MAHALAXMI STORES
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DEPUTY GOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS [REFERRED]STERLING FOODS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
CHOWGULE AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED V S DEMPO AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P VS. LAL KUNWA STONE CRUSHER PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
CHANDI PRASAD UPADHYAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-259] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER SALES TAX VS. KUNWAR SAHEB AND CO [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
SONEBHADRA FUELS VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2004-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR STONE WORKS PARTNER INDER SINGH RAM PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EAST PURE DRINK PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHA ASSAM COAL MINES INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN VS. SHAKTI LPG LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2003-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
Chemicare Products LTD VS. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
R SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2004-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
NELKADIR BONE INDUSTRIES VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PAWAN AGGARWAL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
JAI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAXMI METAL QUARRY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-126] [REFERRED TO]
N.E. PACKAGED DRINKING WATER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
SONEBHADRA FUELS VS. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-117] [REFERRED TO]
A P PRODUCTS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2007-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA VS. TARA AGENCIES [LAWS(SC)-2007-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
C H KUNHIKANNAN VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2006-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
S.S.NARNOLLY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
NTPC LIMITED VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-184] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA SURGICAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, RAJASTHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-79] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR PODDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2010-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA CEMENTS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2005-6-76] [RELIED ON]
VIJAYA PACKERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., CALICUT [LAWS(CE)-2008-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
S.R.K. PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2007-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
MCDOWELL & COMPANY LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III [LAWS(CE)-2006-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDUS COSMECEUTICALS [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. VS. R. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND SONS [LAWS(CE)-2003-6-228] [REFERRED TO]
COOL DESSERTS AND SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, PARTNER VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2005-1-224] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS PAULING JOINT VENTURE VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-1-316] [REFERRED TO]
AMI PIGMENTS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THR SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2010-2-366] [REFERRED TO]
TATA TEA LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KALPTARU AGRO FOREST ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD.RAEBARELI VS. THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P.GOMTI NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-94] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VS. M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD. & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SHREE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2012-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
FARIDABAD IRON & STEEL TRADERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-11-154] [REFERRED]
VARDHMAN TILES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal arises from the judgment of a division bench of the High Court at bombay passed in sales tax reference no. 1 of 1995 dated 22nd February, 1995.
(2.)The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal referred the following question under section 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act1) to the high Court:
"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 metal of different sizes ordinarily known as 'gitti' does not amount to manufacture -
(3.)The facts, insofar as they are relevant for our purpose, are as follows: the assessee purchases big sized stones - boulders from registered dealers and crushes them into small sizes known as 'gitti'. It approached the commissioner of sales tax for determination of the question whether converting bigger size boulders into 'gitti' would amount to manufacture. The deputy commissioner held that the process of conversion amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2 (17) of the Act. Against the order of the deputy commissioner, the assessee went in appeal before the Maharashtra Sales tax Tribunal. The contention of the assessee that converting boulders into 'gitti' does not involve any manufacturing process within the meaning of the act, was accepted by the tribunal. From that order, the aforementioned question was referred to the High Court at Bombay. Following the judgments of this court in Deputy Commissioner of sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and Sterling foods v. State of Karnataka and Ors. the High Court held that the conversion of boulders into 'gitti did not amount to 'manufacture': It is this view of the High court that is assailed in this appeal by the revenue.
(2.)The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal referred the following question under section 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act1) to the high Court:
"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 metal of different sizes ordinarily known as 'gitti' does not amount to manufacture -
(3.)The facts, insofar as they are relevant for our purpose, are as follows: the assessee purchases big sized stones - boulders from registered dealers and crushes them into small sizes known as 'gitti'. It approached the commissioner of sales tax for determination of the question whether converting bigger size boulders into 'gitti' would amount to manufacture. The deputy commissioner held that the process of conversion amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2 (17) of the Act. Against the order of the deputy commissioner, the assessee went in appeal before the Maharashtra Sales tax Tribunal. The contention of the assessee that converting boulders into 'gitti' does not involve any manufacturing process within the meaning of the act, was accepted by the tribunal. From that order, the aforementioned question was referred to the High Court at Bombay. Following the judgments of this court in Deputy Commissioner of sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and Sterling foods v. State of Karnataka and Ors. the High Court held that the conversion of boulders into 'gitti did not amount to 'manufacture': It is this view of the High court that is assailed in this appeal by the revenue.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.