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 a dealer purchasing iron scrap from others and reselling it could be treated as a manufacturer so as to make the sale of such scrap taxable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Analysis: The statutory definitions of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" in section 2(e-1) and section 2(ee) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act cover activities such as producing, making, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise processing goods, and treat as manufacturer the dealer who makes the first sale after manufacture. On the facts found, the dealer was engaged in purchase and sale of scrap obtained from unregistered dealers, and there was no finding that he himself collected the scrap in a manner amounting to manufacture. The word used in the material before the Court indicated mere storage or stocking, not manufacture, and the sale by the revisionist was not the first sale of such goods.
Conclusion: The dealer was not a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, and the sale of iron scrap made by him was not taxable on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the order holding the scrap sales taxable was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser of scrap does not become a manufacturer merely because the goods are stored, stocked, or resold; liability attaching only to the first sale after manufacture cannot be fastened where the dealer has only purchased and resold the goods.