Main Search Premium Members Desktop View

Cites 9 docs - [View All]

Section 10A in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 8(3) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 7(2) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
M/S. J. K. Cotton Spinning & ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur And ... on 28 October, 1964

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free
for one month and pay only if you like it.
Print it on a file/printer
Get this document in PDF
Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Trade Tax vs Rana Industries on 28 May, 2004 User Queries
form c
Equivalent citations: 2006 144 STC 452 All bridge
Author: P Krishna issuing c forms
Bench: P Krishna central sales tax act
central sales tax
JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. packing material
section 10a
1. This revision is at the instance of Commissioner of Sales Tax under
Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order dated May 16,
1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1994 for the assessment year 1991-92.
The Tribunal by the impugned order has set aside the penalty proceeding under Section 10A of the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The dealer-opposite party carried on the business of manu facture and sale of M.S. angles and bars, etc.
It has obtained regis tration for the assessment year 1991-92 under Section 7(2) of the Act. The assessing
authority initiated penalty proceeding under Section 10A of the Act on the ground of misuse of form C. The
case of the depart ment is that the dealer purchased "electronic weigh bridge" with P.C. computer system
with keyboard and monitor by unauthorisedly issuing forms C Nos. 309775 and 379774. The dealer was not
authorised to purchase these two items at the concessional rate of tax against form C. In reply to the show
cause notice the stand of the dealer was that there is no misuse of form C and the aforesaid goods were
purchased by issuing form C, as the dealer was authorised to purchase machinery against form C. The
dealer treated these items covered under "machinery" as mentioned in his registration certificate.

3. The assessing authority levied penalty to the extent of Rs. 18,800 and held that the aforesaid items were
not covered by the registration certificate and hence there was misuse of form C. The said order was
confirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal in second appeal has set aside the entire penalty order
on the ground that the assessee has not concealed purchase of the goods in question and there is no
evidence on record that the appellant has tried to evade tax liability. This order of the Tribunal is under
challenge in the present revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The Tribunal has set aside the penalty proceeding and approached the matter with wrong angle. It was
of the opinion that since the purchase of electronic weigh bridge has been shown in the books of account,
therefore the assessee has issued form C under bona fide belief that electronic weigh bridge is covered
under the entry "rolling mill machinery" meant for the use in the manufacture of goods by his unit. It then
proceeded that there is no evidence on record that the electronic weigh bridge is being used for weighing
the vehicle of public as "Dharmkanta" and the weigh bridge has been installed in the premises of the
assessee and is being used in the business of the unit weighing the raw material and the finished goods. In
that view of the matter the Tribunal treated the electronic weigh bridge in question and held it as part of
the machinery used in the manufacture of the goods by the appellant. The approach of the Tribunal cannot
be approved.

6. Under Section 8(3) of the Act the registered dealer and the Government can purchase goods at
concessional rate, (i) the sale must be in the course of inter-State trade and commerce to the reg istered
dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, (ii) the sale to Gov ernment, (iii) any goods or class of goods
specified in the registration certificate issued under Section 7 of the Act, (iv) the goods may be for re-sale,
or (v) intended for use in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, or (vi) in mining or (vii) in
generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, (viii) container or packing material
enumerated in the registration certificate, (ix) packing material for packing the material, (x) sale to be
effected by registered or unregistered dealer and such sale must be to a registered dealer under the Central
Sales Tax Act or to the Government (a) State Gov ernment or (b) the Central Government.

7. In the present case registration was granted to the dealer to purchase the goods in inter-State, intended
for use in the manu facture or processing of goods for sale. Therefore it was incumbent upon the Tribunal
to have recorded definite finding as to whether the "electronic weigh bridge" was used in the manufacture
of goods. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have held that electronic weigh bridge
purchased by the dealer was not used and is not covered within the expression "in the manufacture or
processing of the goods for sale". They have placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in J.K.
Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer . The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case
has interpreted the words "in the manufacture of goods" include, all process, which are directly related to
the actual production. The goods intended as for use in the manufacture of goods are expressly made
admissible for specification, it has been held that there is no warrant for limiting the meaning of the
expression "in the manufacture of goods" to the process or production of goods only. But it has also been
held that the building material including lime and cement not required in the manufacture of tiles for sale
cannot, however, be regarded within the meaning of rule 13, as raw material in the manufacture of
processing of goods or even as plant, electrical equipments not directly connected with the process of
manufacture, would not be under the aforesaid expression. Office equipment, such as fan, cooler, air-
conditioning unit, would not be admissible to special rate under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has
failed to examine this point in depth. The point has been dealt with before the Tribunal in cursory manner.
The Tribunal being the last fact finding court, is required to record definite finding looking to the nature of
business and manufacturing activity of the assessee as to whether "electronic weigh bridge" is covered
with the expression "in the manufacture of goods".

8. Learned counsel for the asses see Sri Kunwar Saxena has placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court given in the case of Ravi Engineering Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1979 UPTC 11. Undoubtedly in
the aforesaid case the electronic weigh bridge has been held to be as machine. What I find from the
Tribunal's order that in the registration certificate the entry appears to be rolling mill machinery. The
other two authorities have not mentioned the exact items or description of the machinery as mentioned in
the registration certificate. However, if in the registration certificate rolling machinery is entered into, it
has to be examined whether electronic weigh bridge would be included within the aforesaid expression or
not. None of the authorities below have mentioned in their order the specific items mentioned in the
registration certificate. It is desirable that in such type of cases the specific: items as mentioned in the
registration certificate should be reproduced in the order for the purposes of clarity. I may add that in
electronic weigh machine, the process of getting loading is different from the simple weigh bridge. The
weight is directly displayed on the screen in electronic weigh machine without putting actual balancing
weight on the other side of pan. Since the goods to be weighed is to be put on platform/pan, a force gets
applied, which means it is a machinery in common parlance. The basic principle of both kind of weighing
machine is the same. The only difference is in getting final result of process of taking weight. Nonetheless
electronic weighing machine is basically machine plus something more. The Full Bench decision of our
Court in the case of Engineering Traders v. State of U.P. [1973] 31 STC 456 : 1973 UPTC 91 has held that
machinery in the generic sense would include all appliances and instruments whereby energy of force is
transmitted and transformed from one point to another. The Tribunal is required to examine the matter in
the light of actual expression used with regard to machinery. in the registration certificate of the dealer
and has to record a finding in the light of Section 8(3) of the Act with respect to electronic weighing
machine.

9. Now the question remains as to whether another item, namely, P.C. computer system with key board and
monitor purchased by the dealer is covered by the expression "machinery" or not. This point will not
detain us longer. The first two authorities have held that P.C. computer system with key board and monitor
is not machinery and is not covered by the registration certificate of the dealer and thus the dealer has
unauthorisedly issued form C for the purchase of these items and it is the case of misuse of form C and the
dealer is liable to pay penalty. The Tribunal without reversing these findings has held on all the issues that
mens rea is one of the essential ingredients to impose penalty under Section 10A of the Act and the dealer
has not issued form C with guilty conscious for the purposes to evade tax or to cause loss of revenue to the
department. The order of the Tribunal is not at all satisfactory. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that
the dealer has by issuing form C availed concessional rate of tax on the purchase of P.C. computer system
with keyboard and monitor. This item is indisputably not mentioned in the registration certificate. The
purchase of item against form C, which is not mentioned in the registration certificate, will lead a
conclusion that the purchase was with mala fide intention. No person can bona fidely entertain the belief
while purchasing the goods not mentioned in the registration certificate that he has authorised to purchase
it at concessional rate of tax by issuing form C. Learned counsel for the dealer could not justify the finding
of the Tribunal on this issue. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that action of the dealer was bona
fide. The Tribunal was very much obsessed with the view that since the dealer has disclosed the purchase
in the books of account and issued genuine C form the penalty cannot be levied. This approach of the
Tribunal if accepted then in every case the dealer is entitled to purchase items even though not mentioned
in the registration certificate at the concessional rate of tax and will reduce the mention of goods in the
registration certificate a mere formality which cannot be the intention of law. It will nullify Section 7(2) of
the Act. Therefore, I have no option but to sustain the order of penalty levied on the purchase of P.C.
computer system with keyboard and monitor. Learned counsel for the assessee could not show me
anything to hold that this item is covered under "machinery". The levy of penalty on P.C. computer system
with keyboard and monitor is confirmed and to that extent the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

10. In the result, the revision is allowed in part as indicated above. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal
for reconsideration of levy of penalty in the light of observations made above on electronic weigh bridge
and to record necessary findings. The order of penalty on electronic weigh bridge with P.C. computer
system with keyboard and monitor is confirmed.