Plant and machinery classification for tax exemption turns on factual function under the earlier law, not a later amendment alone.

Under the unamended exemption provision, the decisive question was whether dyes and moulds used in manufacturing formed part of plant and machinery for fixed capital investment purposes. The court held that the later insertion of dyes, moulds, jigs and fixtures did not by itself show that such items were outside the earlier law. Because the Divisional Level Committee and Tribunal had not examined the factual nature and function of the items in the particular manufacturing unit, and had relied only on the later amendment, the adverse exclusion could not stand. The matter was set aside and remitted for fresh factual reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether investment in dyes and moulds used in the manufacturing process could be treated as part of plant and machinery for computing fixed capital investment under the unamended exemption provision, and whether the matter required fresh factual examination.

Analysis: The relevant framework was section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 read with Explanation 4, as it stood before the amendment that later inserted dyes, moulds, jigs and fixtures. The Court held that the mere subsequent insertion of those words did not, by itself, conclude that such items were never capable of falling within plant and machinery under the earlier law. The decisive question was whether, on the facts of the manufacturing unit, the dyes and moulds were an integral and necessary part of the plant and machinery used for production. Since neither the Divisional Level Committee nor the Tribunal had examined that factual question, and had proceeded only on the basis of the later amendment, the matter had not been properly determined.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the investment in dyes and moulds could not be sustained without a factual inquiry into whether those items formed part of plant and machinery under the unamended provision. The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief by way of setting aside of the adverse order and restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication on the relevant factual issue.

Ratio Decidendi: For an exemption or investment-based tax benefit, the determining question is the nature and function of the item under the law applicable on the relevant date, and a later amendment cannot substitute for the required factual inquiry into whether the item was already covered by the earlier statutory description.

---