Set-off under sales tax law cannot be curtailed by delegated rules beyond the statute's manufacturing nexus requirement.

Delegated rules under the Bombay Sales Tax framework could not narrow the statutory right of set-off granted to manufacturers or processors. The rule proviso was valid only to the extent it preserved the requirement of use in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale; the part restricting relief to raw materials, processing materials, fuel, lubricants, containers or packing materials was ultra vires. Deletion of the earlier statutory proviso did not create an unrestricted entitlement for all purchases. Machinery items such as electric motors, tools, drills, switches, iron plates, angles and springs were not raw materials or processing materials in ordinary meaning, but set-off could still be available if they were used in manufacture of the specified goods for sale.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proviso (a) to rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, was ultra vires section 18B(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. (ii) Whether, after deletion of the earlier proviso to section 18B(2), the right to set-off extended to all classes of goods purchased by a manufacturer. (iii) Whether machinery items such as electric motors, tools, drills, switches, iron plates, angles and springs were "processing materials" or "raw materials" within proviso (a) to rule 11(1A). (iv) Whether the assessee was entitled to set-off in respect of tax paid on such items.

Issue (i): Whether proviso (a) to rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, was ultra vires section 18B(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Analysis: Section 18B(2), as amended, contained a mandatory direction that rules must provide a set-off to a registered dealer manufacturing or processing goods for sale, and it did not retain the earlier statutory proviso authorising restriction by reference to the manner of use of the goods. The general rule-making powers under section 45 and section 18B(1) could not justify a restriction that cut down the specific mandate of section 18B(2). A subordinate rule could regulate the statutory set-off, but could not add a condition that narrowed the class of qualifying goods beyond the statute.

Conclusion: The proviso was not wholly invalid, but the part limiting set-off to goods used as raw materials, processing materials, fuel, lubricants, containers or packing materials was ultra vires; the remaining part requiring use in manufacture or processing of specified goods for sale was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether, after deletion of the earlier proviso to section 18B(2), the right to set-off extended to all classes of goods purchased by a manufacturer.

Analysis: The amended section continued to confine the set-off to goods that had a nexus with manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The deletion of the former proviso removed the specific statutory restriction, but it did not create an unrestricted entitlement to set-off on every kind of purchase. The statutory scheme still required that the goods concerned be used in the manufacture or processing of goods specified for sale.

Conclusion: The right to set-off did not extend to all classes of goods, but only to goods used in the manufacture or processing of the relevant goods for sale.

Issue (iii): Whether machinery items such as electric motors, tools, drills, switches, iron plates, angles and springs were "processing materials" or "raw materials" within proviso (a) to rule 11(1A).

Analysis: The items in question formed part of machinery used in the manufacturing process and did not themselves answer the description of raw materials or processing materials. On the facts, they were used in the manufacture of finished goods, but they were not raw materials or processing materials in the ordinary sense employed by the proviso.

Conclusion: The items were neither "processing materials" nor "raw materials" within proviso (a) to rule 11(1A).

Issue (iv): Whether the assessee was entitled to set-off in respect of tax paid on such items.

Analysis: The entitlement depended on whether the items were used in the manufacture or processing of goods specified in entries 19 to 80 of Schedule B for sale. If that nexus was established, the set-off could not be denied merely because the items were not raw materials or processing materials. Since the machinery items were used in manufacture, the statutory set-off was available to that extent.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to set-off if the items were found to be used in the manufacture or processing of the specified goods for sale.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the impugned rule was only partly beyond the rule-making power, that the statutory right to set-off survived for goods used in manufacture or processing of the specified goods for sale, and that the assessee succeeded to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a mandatory right to set-off in favour of manufacturers or processors, delegated legislation cannot impose additional restrictive conditions that curtail the statutory entitlement, though it may regulate the nexus between the goods claimed and the manufacturing process.

---