TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules drilling tube-wells not water manufacturing, rejects concessional rates claim, upholds tax orders</h1> The Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that drilling tube-wells does not constitute the manufacturing of water. The petitioners' claim for concessional ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and M.P. General Sales Tax Act regarding concessional rate on purchase of goods.2. Whether drilling of tube-wells amounts to manufacturing of water.3. Validity of orders passed by Sales Tax Officer and revisional authority.4. Retrospective deletion of entries in registration certificate and initiation of penalty proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and M.P. General Sales Tax ActThe petitioners, registered Government contractors engaged in drilling tube-wells, contended that as manufacturers under the State Act, they are entitled to purchase goods at a concessional rate under section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer's order was challenged based on the interpretation of the terms 'processing' and 'manufacture.' The Court examined relevant case laws and the definition of 'manufacture' to determine if the petitioners were eligible for the benefit under the Acts.Issue 2: Manufacturing of WaterThe main issue was whether drilling tube-wells amounts to the manufacturing of water. The petitioners argued that extracting water through drilling qualifies as manufacturing, while the Additional Advocate-General contended otherwise. The Court analyzed the term 'manufacture' in various contexts, emphasizing that for an activity to be considered manufacturing, there must be a transformation resulting in a new commercial commodity. Ultimately, the Court held that the flow of water from drilling tube-wells does not constitute the manufacture of water.Issue 3: Validity of OrdersThe validity of orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and revisional authority was questioned. The Sales Tax Officer's decision to delete disputed items from the registration certificate and initiate penalty proceedings was upheld in revision. The petitioners argued against the retrospective effect of the deletion and penalty proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioners could raise this issue in penalty proceedings, and thus dismissed the petitions.Issue 4: Retrospective Deletion and Penalty ProceedingsThe retrospective deletion of entries in the registration certificate and initiation of penalty proceedings were contested by the petitioners. While the petitioners argued against the retrospective nature of the actions, the Court held that such matters could be raised before the appropriate authority during penalty proceedings. The Court did not delve further into this aspect, leaving it open for the petitioners to address before the relevant authority.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the drilling of tube-wells does not amount to the manufacturing of water. The petitioners' claims for concessional rates on goods were rejected, and the validity of the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and revisional authority was upheld. The issue of retrospective deletion and penalty proceedings was left for the petitioners to address before the appropriate authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
