Direct use in manufacture test governs registration goods; wrongly included items may be deleted from the certificate.

Goods qualify for registration purposes only when they are directly and actually used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale under rule 13 read with section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Drawing and photographic materials used for designing, electricals used for lighting and worker , building materials, and machinery enabling manufacture were held outside the rule because they are not themselves raw materials, processing materials, or directly operative manufacturing inputs. The Court also treated section 7(4) as wide enough to permit modification or partial cancellation of a registration certificate for sufficient reason, including correction of wrongly included items. The disputed deletions were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether drawing materials, photographic materials, electricals, building materials and machinery were covered by the expression goods intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale within rule 13 read with section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the authority had jurisdiction under section 7(4) to modify, amend or partly cancel the certificate of registration by deleting such items.

Issue (i): whether drawing materials, photographic materials, electricals, building materials and machinery were covered by the expression goods intended for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale within rule 13 read with section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Rule 13 permits only those goods that are intended for use as raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The Court held that designing is a separate and earlier operation distinct from manufacture, and articles used only for preparation of designs are not used in manufacture or processing. Electricals used for lighting, fans and convenience of workers were held not to be directly and actually used in the manufacture of goods. Building materials such as cement and lime were also excluded because they are not directly needed in the making or processing of goods. Machinery was likewise held outside the rule because it enables manufacture but is not itself used as an ingredient or commodity in the creation of the goods.

Conclusion: the disputed items did not fall within rule 13 read with section 8 and were rightly excluded.

Issue (ii): whether the authority had jurisdiction under section 7(4) to modify, amend or partly cancel the certificate of registration by deleting such items.

Analysis: Section 7(4) empowers cancellation of a registration certificate for any sufficient reason. The Court treated these words as wide enough to include partial cancellation or modification where some items were wrongly included in the certificate. Since the deleted articles were found not to be covered by the statutory scheme for registered purchases, the authority was competent to correct the earlier erroneous inclusion and delete those goods from the certificate.

Conclusion: the authority had jurisdiction to modify or partly cancel the certificate of registration.

Final Conclusion: the challenge to the deletion of the disputed items failed, and the petition was dismissed as the impugned orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: goods are covered for registration purposes only when they are directly and actually used in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, and section 7(4) authorises modification or partial cancellation of a registration certificate for sufficient reason, including correction of an erroneous inclusion.

---