Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) The present revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated October 11, 2002 relating to assessment year 1999-2000.
(2.) The present revision has been admitted to decide two questions of law referred as below : "1. Whether the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated October 11, 2002 is vitiated in law on account of non-consideration of the written arguments and the decisions delivered by this honourable Court as also by the honourable Supreme Court ? 2. Whether under Notification No. 2375 dated November 23, 1998 'paint and varnishes' are taxable at single point, hence what was sold by the applicant was paint only on which the tax was already paid and therefore merely because some colour was added in the said paint it will not cease to be paint and cannot be subject to tax again in view of the aforesaid Notification No. 2375 dated November 23, 1998 ?"
(3.) The case of the applicant is, that the applicant had established a computerised machine named as "colour world" manufactured by Asian Paints India Limited with a view to provide various shades of colour as per the choice of the customers. The applicant submitted, that it purchased white paint within the State of U.P. on payment of tax and on the desire of the customers mixed stainers purchased within the State of U.P. According to the applicant, by the process of staining, colour was given to the white paint and therefore, the material which was purchased within the State of U.P. was white paint and after staining or tinting by stainers it remained paint and no independent distinct commercial commodity came into existence. He submitted that the process of tinting/staining is not the manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and since the white paint was U.P. purchased (tax paid), hence, coloured paint is not liable to tax. The applicant claimed exemption on the turnover of coloured paint before the assessing authority.;