YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The only questions which were pressed at the time of hearing were question Nos. 2 and 3. Insofar as question No. 3 is concerned the same stands answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s H.M. Industries [1980 UPTC 334].
(3.) Insofar as the question No. 2 is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist was that the assessee was not the manufacturer of the Sewai machine and this work was being outsourced. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not be sufficient to recognise the assessee as not being a manufacturer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. A reading of the definition of the expressions "manufacture" and "manufacturer" clearly establishes that any person who effects the first sale of the product in the State of U.P. has been defined to be included in the expression "manufacturer". The revisionist does not deny that the first sale of the product was effected by it. In view thereof, question No. 2 is answered against the assessee.;