Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether repairing old drums by removing dents and leakages amounted to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the repaired drums became a different commercial commodity for the purposes of tax treatment.
Analysis: The definition of manufacture, though wide, was held to require that the activity must result in a different commercial article or commodity. Mere repair of old drums did not bring into existence a commercially different commodity, and the repaired drums remained commercially the same as the old drums. The reasoning distinguished authorities under the Factories Act because that enactment was a social welfare statute and expressly treated certain processes, including repair-related processes, as manufacturing processes, unlike the sales tax statute. On the facts, the repaired drums could not be treated as manufactured goods, and the turnover question under section 10(1) also did not alter that conclusion.
Conclusion: Repairing old drums did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: An activity amounts to manufacture under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 only if it results in a commercially different commodity; mere repair or reconditioning of goods that remain commercially the same is not manufacture.