STATE OF GUJARAT v. M/S. ANANTA MILLS LTD.
Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 669; 1965 INSC 259
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. SUBBA RAO , J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1965 INSC 259. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1965-11-23. STATE OF GUJARAT v. M/S. ANANTA MILLS LTD. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
'670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] 2 S. C. R. 6 69 STATE OF GUJARAT v. M/S. ANANTA MILLS LTD. November 23, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S! KRI, JJ. ] Bombay Sales Tax (Exemption, set-cfj and Composition) Rules, 1954, rr. 6 and 12-Purchase Tax paid on unginned cotton-Ginned Cotton used in manufacture-Sale of Cotton seeds-Purchase tax, if re-fundable. The respondent, a manufacturer of co,tton 1'cxtiles, purchased unginned cotton and paid purchase tax thereon. The cotton was ginned and pressed by the respondent, the ginned cotton was used in the manufacture of cotton textile while the cotton seeds w-ore sold by it. The respondent claimed refund of purchase tax paid on the unginned cotton under the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemption, Set-off and Compo•ition) Rules, 1954 which was disallowed by the Sales Tax authorities on the ground that r.
6(ii) was not applicable when subsidiary or incidental pToduct alone was sold and the main product was used in the manufacture of the goods and looking at the working of the aforesaid Rule, all the products of the unprocessed goods should he sold. Jn reference, the High Court allowed • the refund of the purchase tax under r: 12(i) . HELD : The respondent was entitled to refund under r. 12(i). What is necessary under rule 12(i) is that the goods should have been actually used for the purpose specified viz. , the production of any of the goods aforementioned for sale. The;se conditions have been satisfied in this case because unginned cotton was used for the purpose of producing one of the goods specified in column 2 for sale, namely, cotton seeds. [672 H] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 807 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 10, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Sales-tax Reference No. 8 of 1961. R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K.
Achar, for the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a Sales Tax Refer~nce made to it by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. Two quesuons R were referred by the said Tribunal to the High Court : "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the purchase of the raw cotton by the applicant Mill could be said to have been intended for use in the production of cotton seeds for sale within the meaning of clause (ii) of rule 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemption, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954; 2. Whether the applicant Mill is entitled under rule 12(1) to a refund of the purchase tax paid 'by it. " The facts set out in the statement of the case by the Tribunal are briefly as follows : The respondent is a manufacturer of cotton textile, particularly of coarse and medium variety cloth.
During the assessment period from April 1, 1955 to March 31, 1956, it purchased unginned cotton worth Rs. 5,93,266/- from unregister-ed dealers and paid purchase tax of Rs. 5,932/- under s. lO(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The cotton was ginned and pressed by the respondent, the ginned cotton was· used in the manufacture of cotton textiles while the cotton seeds were sold by it. During the course of assessment proceedings the respon- n dent applied for refund of purchase tax paid on the unginned cotton under the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemption, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). • The Sales Tax Officer refused to allow any refund on the ground that the conditions of r. 12(1) read with r. 6(ii) of the Rules had not been fulfilled.
The Assistant Collector of Sales Tax on appeal confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that "rule 6(ii) is not applicable when subsidiary or incidental product alone is sold and the main product is used in the manufacture of other goods. Looking the working of the aforesaid Rule, al! the products of the unprocessed goods should be sold. " The respondent filed a revision before the Deputy Commis-sioner of Sales Tax, who also upheld the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The respondent then filed a revision before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the revision on the ground that "the purpose underlying the applicant's purchases was primarily the production of ginned cotton for manufacture. The cotton seeds which form the bye-product of the ginning process would no doubt have to be sold because the Mill has no use for them. But that does not mean that the purpose for which un- • ginned cotton was purchased was the sale of cotton seeds. It is ..
i;-_-_ not reasonable to suppose that a textile mill purchases unginned * 2 of the Schedule, and he wants us to omit from consideration the words "for sale". We agree with Mr. Ganapathy Iyer that • the purpose must be the purpose of producing goods--unginned cotton, ginned or pressed cotton, cotton seeds--for sale, and the words "for sale" must be given effect to. But even if this contention of Mr. Ganapathy Iyer is accepted the respondent would still, in our opinion, be entitled to refund under r. 12(1). Rule 6 speaks of the intention at the time of the purchase, but r. 12 does not incorporate that intention by referring to the purpose specified in cl. 6 (ii). The intention at the time of the purchase is irrelevant for the purpose of r. 12. In r.
6(ii) intention was relevant because the purchasing dealer had to furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in Form ( 4) declaring that the goods sold to him were intended to be used by him for producing any of the goods falling under the corresponding entry in Column 2 of the said schedule for sale. But when the respondent paid the purchase tax on unginned cotton under s. lO(a) of the Act, he paid it because he purchased the same from persons who were_ not registered dealers, and there was no question of furnishing any certificate at that stage. As the High Court observed "what is necessary is that goods should have been actually used ; for the purpose specified viz .. the production of any of the goods aforementioned for sale. " These conditions have been satisfied in this case because unginned cotton was used for the purpose of producing one of the goods specified in column 2, namely, cotton STATE V. ANANTA MILLS (Sikri, J. ) 673 t. . A seeds.
Consequently, the respondent is entitled to a refund under ' r. 12 and the High Court was right in answering the second ques- • tion in the affinnative. We also agree with the High Court that in view of its answer to question No. 2 it is not necessary to answer T question No. 1. - B In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs here and in the High Court. Appeal dismissed. - •
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.