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 fumigating and treating foodgrains with insecticides, fumigants and similar chemicals amounts to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the dealer was consequently entitled to set-off under rule 43 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
Analysis: The definition of manufacture in section 2(17) is wide, but it cannot be read so broadly as to treat every process applied to goods as manufacture. The controlling principle is that the process must have some real impact on the nature or character of the goods. Applying the settled interpretation, fumigation and treatment of foodgrains to preserve them from deterioration and pests does not bring about any alteration in their nature or character. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on the same statutory definition was followed, and the questions were treated as already concluded by that reasoning.
Conclusion: Fumigating and treating foodgrains with chemicals does not amount to manufacture within section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the claim to set-off under rule 43 fails.
Final Conclusion: The application for reference was rejected because the proposed questions were already settled against the applicant and did not require further reference.
Ratio Decidendi: A process applied to goods constitutes manufacture only if it effects a real alteration in the nature or character of the goods; mere preservation or treatment without such alteration is not manufacture.