PETITIONER:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (LAW)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
N. KANNAN NAIR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1988
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
RANGNATHAN, S.
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1133 1988 SCR (3) 489
1988 SCC Supl. 367 JT 1988 (2) 141
1988 SCALE (1)768
ACT
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963-Section 5A(1)(a)- P.W.D. contractor-Undertakes contract for repair of roads- Materials like sand, bricks etc. used by assessee-Whether assessable to purchase tax.
HEADNOTE
%
The respondent-assessee a P.W.D. contractor had undertaken certain contract works on behalf of the Public Works Department for repair of roads.
The assessee was assessed on the purchased turnover of sand, bricks etc. which were used for the execution of the work. The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
In the second appeal preferred by the assessee the Tribunal found that it was necessary under s. 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to have consumption of the commodity in the manufacture of another commodity, the goods purchased should be consumed, the consumption should be in the process of manufacture and the result must be the manufacture of other goods, and held that when a P.W.D. contractor was using articles for constructing a sea wall or repairing public roads there was consumption of a commodity for the manufacture of another commodity and allowed the appeal.
The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and rejected the revision preferred by the Revenue.
In the Special Leave Petitions to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner-Revenue, that if no manufacturing process was involved, the case would fall within the scope of s. 5A(1)(a) of the Act because the statutory provisions spoke not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale but also goods ’consumed otherwise’.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. ^
HELD: Section 5-A (1)(a) speaks of goods consumed in the 490 manufacture of other goods for purposes other than sale. [493F]
In the instant case, the user must be in the other commodity and the expression ’consumed otherwise’ must be so construed. When a P.W.D. contractor is using articles for constructing or repairing a public road there was consumption of a commodity for the manufacture of another commodity. [493F]
Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1271; Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 490 and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Ors. Ltd., SLP(C) Nos.8747-49/1987, referred to.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2867 of 1988 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.1987 of the Kerala High Court in T.R.C. No. 33 of 1985.
V.J. Francis for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These are petitions for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the decision of the High Court of Kerala. The revenue is the petitioner before the High Court. The respondent is the assessee. The respondent is a P.W.D. contractor. He had undertaken certain contract works on behalf of the Public Works Department. He had executed agreements with the P.W.D. for repair of roads. The question involved is, whether the materials used by the assessee for the said purpose can be taxed under purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called ’the Act’). The relevant provisions of Section 5A(1), (a), (b), (c), (2) and (3) of the Act are as follows:
"5A. Levy of purchase tax: (1) Every dealer
who, in the course of his business, purchases from
a registered dealer or from any other person any
goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to
tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no
tax is payable under section 5, and either: 491
(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of
other foods for sale or otherwise; or
(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other
than by way of sale in the State; or
(c) despatches them to any place outside the State
except as a direct result of sale or purchase in
the course of interstate trade or commerce, shall,
whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating
to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the
taxable turnover relating to such purchase for
that year at the rates mentioned in section 5.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
subsection (1), a dealer (other than a casual
trader or agent of a non-resident dealer)
purchasing goods, the sale of which is liable to
tax under section. 5, shall not be liable to pay
tax under section (1) if his total turnover for a
year is less than (twenty thousand rupees);
Provided that where the total turnover of such
dealer for the year in respect of the goods
mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of
section 5 is not less than two thousand five
hundred rupees, he shall be liable to pay tax on
the taxable turnover in respect of these goods.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing provisions of this section, a dealer
referred to in subsection (I), who purchases
goods, the sale of which is liable to tax under
clause (ii) of sub-section (I) of Section 5, and
whose total turnover for a year is not less than
(twenty thousand rupees) but not more than twenty-
five thousand rupees may, at his option instead of
paying the tax in accordance with the provisions
of sub-section (I), pay tax (at the rate)
mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (I) of
section 7 in accordance with the provisions of
that section."
The assessee was assessed on the purchase turnover of sand, bricks, etc. which were used for the execution of his work. The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the second appeal preferred by the assessee, the Tribunal found that the assessee was a P.W.D. Contractor. He had obtained an amount of 492 Rs.1,01,372 as per bills from the Executive Engineer (Roads and Buildings). According to the assessing officer an amount of Rs.27684.13 was the purchase value of articles used by the assessee for the execution of these contracts and so the assessing officer had assessed this turnover to tax under Section 5A of the Act. The Tribunal found that it was necessary under the said Section 5A of the Act to have consumption of the commodity in the manufacture of another commodity, the goods purchased should be consumed, the consumption should be in the process of manufacture and the result must be the manufacture of other goods. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, when a P.W.D. Contractor was using some articles for constructing a Sea Wall or repairing a public road, there was consumption of a commodity for the manufacture of another commodity. This conclusion logically follows from the observations and ratio of this Court in Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1271, where Pathak, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was held that when pineapple fruit is processed into pineapple slices for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans, there is no consumption of the original pineapple fruit for the purpose of manufacture within the meaning of section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He further observed at pages 1276 and 1277 of the report as follows:
"Although a degree of processing is involved in
preparing pineapple slices from the original
fruit, the commodity continues to possess its
original identity, notwithstanding the removal of
inedible portions, the slicing and thereafter
canning it on adding sugar to preserve it. It is
contended for the Revenue that pineapple slices
have a higher price in the market than the
original fruit and that implies that the slices
constitute a different commercial commodity. The
higher price, it seems to us, is occasioned only
because of the labour put into making the fruit
more readily consumable and because of the can
employed to contain it. It is not as if the higher
price is claimed because it is a different
commercial commodity. It is said that pineapple
slices appeal to a different sector of the trade
and that when a customer asks for a can of
pineapple slices he has in mind something very
different from fresh pineapple fruit. Here again,
the distinction in the mind of the consumer arises
not from any difference in the essential identity
of the two, but is derived from the mere form in
which the fruit is desired. 493
Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that
even if no manufacturing process is involved, the
case still falls within section 5A(1)(a) of the
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because the
statutory provision speaks not only of goods
consumed in the manufacture of other goods for
sale but also goods consumed otherwise. There is a
fallacy in the submission. The clause, truly read,
speaks of goods consumed in the manufacture of
other goods for sale or goods consumed in the
manufacture of other goods for purposes other than
sale."
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contentions and allowed the appeal. The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and rejected the revision. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We are unable to see any ground for interference. The position is clear from the decision of this Court in Pio Food Packers (supra). It was contended before us that if no manufacturing process was involved, the case would fall within the scope of Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Act because the statutory provisions spoke not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale but also goods ’consumed other wise’.
Reliance for that was placed on the decision of this Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 490. It is, however, not possible to accept this contention.
In the decision of Pio Food Packers (supra), it was observed that the clause, truly read, spoke of goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other than sale. In the instant case, the user must be in the other commodity and the expression "consumed otherwise" must be so construed. This contention was specifically considered by this Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8747-49 of 1987-Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, judgment delivered on 14th March, 1988.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. N.V.K. Petitions dismissed. 494