Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 purchasing glass bottles, rubber nipples and plastic caps, putting them together in a carton and selling them as an "auto feeder" amounts to manufacture within section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: Manufacture under section 2(17) requires more than sale of the same goods under a different label or trade name. The decisive test is whether, by producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting the goods, a commercially different commodity comes into being. On the facts, the three items were neither modified nor altered. They were only selected, packed together and sold under a different name. Such packing and relabelling did not amount to adaptation or processing, and the goods did not lose their separate identity as distinct articles.
Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture within section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere packing of separately purchased goods and selling them under a different label or trade name does not constitute manufacture unless the process brings into existence a commercially different commodity through alteration, processing or adaptation of the goods.