1996 (5) TMI 405 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Manufactured goods not declared goods under tax law; deduction claims rejected. Adjustment of security deposit allowed.

The Tribunal held that the manufactured goods (Hamilton poles, pipes, and tubes) did not qualify as declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central ... - Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of claims for deduction from gross turnover under section 5(2)(a)(va) and 5(2)(a)(vd) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. Applicability of section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding the restriction on sales tax for declared goods.3. Classification of Hamilton poles, pipes, and tubes as declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.4. Interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings in Pyare Lal Malhotra and Telangana Steel Industries cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Claims for Deduction from Gross Turnover:The applicant sought deductions under section 5(2)(a)(va) and 5(2)(a)(vd) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for the sale of Hamilton poles, pipes, and tubes manufactured from declared goods. The respondent rejected these claims, asserting that the manufactured goods were commercially different from the raw materials used, thus not qualifying for deductions.2. Applicability of Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:The applicant argued that under section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, declared goods should not be taxed at more than 4% and not at more than one stage. The applicant contended that since tax had already been paid on the raw materials, no additional tax should be levied on the manufactured goods. The respondent countered that this restriction applies only if the finished product and the raw materials fall under the same sub-clause of section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. Classification of Hamilton Poles, Pipes, and Tubes as Declared Goods:The applicant claimed that Hamilton poles, pipes, and tubes should be classified as declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondent argued that Hamilton poles are not merely 'strips in rolled and riveted condition' and undergo various manufacturing processes, making them a different commercial commodity. Similarly, pipes and tubes fall under a different sub-clause than the raw materials used for their manufacture.4. Interpretation of Supreme Court Rulings:The respondent cited the Supreme Court rulings in Pyare Lal Malhotra and Telangana Steel Industries, which state that each sub-clause under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 constitutes a separate commercial commodity. Therefore, the benefit of single-point taxation applies only if both the raw materials and the finished products fall under the same sub-clause. The applicant's reliance on other cases was deemed inapplicable.Judgment:The Tribunal held that the manufactured goods (Hamilton poles, pipes, and tubes) do not fall under the same sub-clause as the raw materials used. Therefore, they cannot be classified as declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Consequently, the claims for deduction under section 5(2)(a)(va) and 5(2)(a)(vd) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were rejected.The application was dismissed, and the respondents were permitted to adjust the security deposit and encash the bank guarantee against any tax due from the applicant. The operation of the judgment was stayed for ten weeks upon the applicant's request.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the manufactured goods were commercially different from the raw materials and did not qualify for the claimed deductions. The interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings reinforced that each sub-clause under section 14(iv) represents a separate commercial commodity, thereby justifying the rejection of the applicant's claims.