BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 21. 7. 1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner is a person who holds certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. THE business of the assessee has been described in the Certificate of registration as `execution of Work Contract and Drilling of Wells of Oil India Limited". THE petitioner executes the work contracts for Oil India Limited in excavating crude oil by using drilling machines. In his certificate of registration, the goods are described for the purpose of sub-S. (1) and (3) of Sec. 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and it is mentioned that the sale of those goods in the course of inter state trade to the dealer shall be taxable at the rate specified in that sub-Sec. subject to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of the Sec. 8 of the Act. THE column for re-sale has been filled by Nil. THE column (b) provides for use in the manufacture or processing of goods and against that, it is mentioned for sale, execution of work contract list enclosed as per rules applicable. THE column No. (c) provides for use in mining and against this column, it is mentioned Nil. However, by his application dated 8. 2. 1994, the assessee prayed for amendment in his certificate of registration stating that since he is engaged in the activity of drilling of wells for Oil India Limited, which activity includes the excavating Oil mineral and gas from the earth and, therefore, the words `mining activity' may be added along with the word `manufacturing activity'. The said application has been rejected by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 13. 4. 1994 on the ground that the assessee is only doing service contract of drilling and is not owner of the mines and therefore, his activity cannot be considered as `mining activity' and the excavation of mineral has been held to be not an activity of manufacture of goods. In this respect, reliance was placed on Vasudhara Tube Wells vs. State of M. P. (1 ). Against that order dated 13. 4. 1994, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal vide his Judgment dated 19. 12. 1994. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 19. 12. 1994, the assessee further filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which also came to be rejected by the Rajasthan Tax Board vide its Judgment dated 21. 7. 1997. Thereafter, the assessee filed second appeal before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, which also came to be rejected vide its Judgment dated 7. 8. 1997. Hence this revision. The Rajasthan Tax Board primarily rested its decision on the ground that since the assessee is not the owner of the Oil Wells nor the lessee in respect of the mineral oil. However, the Board found that under the contract, the petitioner company is responsible to make arrangement of all equipments, machines, materials or any other resources for drilling for the purpose of execution of the contract and the Oil India Company Limited has undertaken to make available casings, pipes, cement etc. In these circumstances, the assessee cannot be said to be reasonable in claiming to be engaging in the activity of mining and the activity of drilling has been held to be not a mining activity following the decision in Vasudhara Tube Wells case (supra ). I have heard Mr. Vineet Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Johari, the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the case.
(3.) IT has been urged by Mr. Vineet Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is engaged in drilling of Oil Wells, he is a manufacturer as he extracts oil from the earth and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 8 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. He submitted that, without prejudice to his contention that drilling activity for excavating mineral oil from the earth is a manufacture process, the petitioner has primarily applied for the amendment in certificate of his registration to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax prescribed in Sub-s. (1) of Sec. 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Even assuming that excavation and drilling of mineral oil is not a manufacturing activity, but it certainly is a mining activity. Purchase of goods by a registered dealer for use in mining is equally eligible to fall in the class of goods in sub-sec. (3) (b) to be included in goods which can be specified in the certificate of registration. IT cannot be doubted that excavation of mineral or by his agent is an activity of mining and it is also settled that resale of goods by the person who carries on manufacturing or mining activities is not a necessary condition to specify the goods in certificate of registration. IT was urged that sale of goods by the manufacture himself or the person engage in mining activity itself is not necessary. The sale of goods that come into existence by manufacturing or the mineral that is won can be sold by other person also for whom the goods have been manufactured or minerals have been won. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Assessing Authority vs. East India Mfg. Co. Ltd. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the Tribunal has rightly reached its conclusion that the assessee being not a mine owner of the holder of the mining lease in respect of the mineral in question, his activity cannot be considered to be a mining activity. He also contends on the envil of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vasudhara Tube Well's case (supra) that activity of excavating mineral is not a manufacturing activity. Having considered carefully the contentions raised before me and having gone through the record of the case that has been placed before me, I am of the opinion that so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to hold the activity of excavation as an activity of manufacturing is concerned it cannot be sustained. In the absence of any legal fiction to that effect, `manufacture' even in its widest term would imply existence of some raw material over which some manual of mechanic process can be applied for effecting it more useable or converting into a different commodity but it cannot be applied to an activity of mining inasmuchas mining is not a process applied to a thing or a substance which has already come into existence for being subjected to process. Mineral is the natural resource, which has to be obtained in raw form from beneath the earth by applying some process. Reaching to the source of the existence of the substance cannot be a process of manufacture. It may be seen that while the definition of very wide amptitude has been designed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act of the term `manufacture' but it does not include the activity of excavation. ;