- (1.) IN terms of Notification No. S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994 (which was based upon Industrial Policy Resolution of 1993 giving incentive to the Entrepreneurs) the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes had granted exemption and issued exemption certificate in form "B" in favour of the writ petitioner in so far as the payment of sales tax on the purchase of raw material was concerned. Exercising suo motu power of revision under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a notice dated February 26, 1998 upon the petitioner calling upon it to show cause and explain as to why the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner granting exemption from payment of sales tax on the purchase of raw materials be not set aside. Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid show cause and notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 770 of 1998 (R). By order dated March 30, 1998 the writ petition was disposed of. The following is the order passed by this Court on March 30, 1998 : "The joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) Dhanbad, by order dated February 26, 1998 issued notice under section 46(4) of the Bihar Fiance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why orders granting exemption from payment of tax under the Act be not re-called. Earlier an order dated February 25, 1998, directing the Steel Authority, Bokaro, not to supply the tax free raw materials to the petitioners was issued. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. By order dated February 26, 1998 the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, decided to exercise revisional power suo motu and accordingly issued notice to the petitioner fixing March 10, 1998 to appear and show cause. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel I, has stated that the petitioner did appear on March 10, 1998 and had taken time up to April 2, 1998 for filing show cause and the case is now fixed on April 2, 1998. As the matter has not been decided so far and has been fixed on April 2, 1998 before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The concerned authority however, should decide the controversy at the earliest. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file show cause on April 2, 1998. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, thereafter will decide it by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a week."
(2.) THE Joint Commissioner proceeded to decide the suo motu revision with respect to and arising out of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and ultimately passed an order on April 15, 1998 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for tax-free purchase of raw materials under the aforesaid S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994 since the petitioner was not engaged in manufacture of a new or different commodity or a product which might be different than the raw material purchased. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner set aside the order dated December 30, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner against which he had exercised his suo motu revisional jurisdiction and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes with direction to hold fresh enquiry and pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made by the Joint Commissioner in his order dated April 15, 1998. The operative portion of the Joint Commissioner's order reads thus : "In view of above facts and circumstances it is fully established beyond doubt that cutting and processing of iron and steel materials adopted by the dealer do not result into emergence of a new or distinct, commercial commodity other that the raw material purchased. Therefore, the dealer is not entitled for tax-free purchase of raw materials under S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994 since the dealer is not engaged in manufacture of a new or different commodity or goods from different raw materials purchased. As such the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated December 30, 1996 and the exemption certificate issued is not legal and proper and therefore the same is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner with direction to hold fresh enquiry and pass appropriate order in the light of above observation in respect of those raw materials which are directly used for manufacture of finished products by way of conversion or transformation of distinct commercial commodity." Aggrieved by the passing of the aforesaid order by the Joint Commissioner even though the Deputy Commissioner had not started proceedings afresh on remand, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 1887 of 1998 (R) and a division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated August 19, 1998 ([2000] 117 STC 91 (Steel India v. State of Bihar)) while dismissing the writ petition clearly held that the petitioner was not engaged in any manufacturing process and that the petitioner was only engaged in the process of cutting and rolling, etc., of the same product. While dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner the Division Bench took into account the definition of the term" manufacture" as occurring in section 2(n) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and taking into consideration the operational aspects of the manufacturing process carried on by the petitioner disagreed with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner and held that in view of the definition of the term "manufacture" the petitioner could not be held entitled to the grant of exemption from the purchase of raw material. The word "manufacture" has been defined in section 2(n) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and reads thus : "2(n) 'manufacture' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adopting any goods but does not include such manufacture or manufacturing process as may be prescribed."
(3.) APPARENTLY not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1887 of 1998 (R) (Steel India v. State of Bihar [2000] 117 STC 91 (Pat.)) the petitioner filed Civil Review Petition, being Civil Review No. 69 of 1998 (R) but the Division bench vide its order dated December 2, 1998 (Steel India v. State of Bihar [1999] 2 BLJR 942) stuck to the judgment and declined to review the same. The Review Application was accordingly dismissed as being without merit. Aggrieved the petitioner filed special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 20301-20302 of 1998 and the same was dismissed vide order dated March 30, 1999. Even with respect to this order the petitioner filed review petition which also was dismissed vide order dated August 17, 1999.;