ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Affidavit of service has already been filed, but none appears for the assessee. Since the matter has remained pending since long, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further, and the revision is taken up for hearing.
(2.) The Tribunal upon a circular issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, dated 4th March, 2002, has taken a view that when steel rod is used to manufacture steel wires, then the product so manufactured would not be liable to be taxed under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, as tax has already been paid upon purchase of steel rod.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel has placed notification dated 4th March, 2002, which interprets a previous circular issued on 25.1.2002, issued in furtherance of certain interim orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in similar matters. Attention of the Court is invited to a decision of Apex Court in M/s. Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in JT 2011 (5) SC 262 , to contend that all such subsequent notifications have been examined, and it is held that once by process of manufacture a new commodity comes into existence, the same shall be liable to be taxed under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, and would not be exempted. Paras 30, 33, 34 and 37 of report is reproduced:- "30. It is thus clear, that if the object of newly substituted clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act was to make iron and steel taxable as one substance, the item could have been "Goods of iron and steel" or, to be more clear, "Iron and steel irrespective of change of form or shape or character of goods made out of them". The more natural meaning, therefore is that each item specified in Section 14(iv) forms a separate species for each series of sales. When one commercial commodity is, by manufacturing process etc., transformed into another, it becomes a separate commodity for sales tax purposes. If iron bars were drawn into "wire", such wire shall be a different taxable commodity. 33. It is thus clear, that the language used in entry no. (ix) is plain and unambiguous and that the items which are mentioned there are "tools, alloy and special steel". By using the words "of any of the above categories" in entry Nos. (ix) would refer to entries (i) to (viii) and it cannot and does not refer to entry no (xv). However, entry (xvi) of Clause (iv) would be included in entry (xvi) particularly within the expression now therein any of the aforesaid categories. Therefore, the specific entry "tool, alloy and special steel" being not applicable to entry (xv), the contention of the counsel for the appellant has to be rejected. It is, therefore, held that the stainless steel wire is not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act. 34. It is a settled principle of law that the words used in the section, rule or notification should not be rendered redundant and should be given effect to. It is also one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of any statue that some meaning must be given to the words used in the section. Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression "tools, alloy and special steels" of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression "Iron and Steel" as each item used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are independent items not depending on each other at all as has been held in the case of Pyare Lal Mehrotra (supra). 37. Therefore, the findings and the decision arrived at by the High Court that stainless steel wire is not covered under the entry of "tools, alloys and special steels" in entry no. (ix) and, therefore, does not fall under "Iron and Steel" as defined under Section 14(iv) of the Central Act have to be upheld. Hence, the said commodity cannot be treated as a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Central Act and provision of Section 15 of the Central Act does not apply to the facts of the present appeals.";