Manufacture under sales tax law excludes mere trading in empty bottles absent the collecting activity treated as manufacture.

Mere purchase and dealing in empty bottles did not constitute manufacture under Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act where the assessee had not itself collected the bottles and the purchases were made from hawkers and kabaris. The Tribunal's factual finding was consistent with earlier binding decisions interpreting the statutory meaning of "manufacturer", and no legal error was shown in applying those principles to the facts. On that basis, the assessee was held not to fall within the definition of manufacturer, and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, dealing in empty bottles purchased from kabaris/hawkers and imported bottles, fell within the definition of "manufacturer" under Section 2(e-1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act so as to attract sales tax liability.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding was that the assessee had not itself collected the empty bottles and that the purchases were made from hawkers, so the goods subjected to tax were not brought within the assessee's hands by any manufacturing activity. The Court noted that the legal position on the meaning of "manufacturer" under Section 2(e-1) had already been settled in earlier decisions and that those principles applied to the facts found by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal's view accorded with the earlier binding decisions of the Court, no error was shown in its conclusion.

Conclusion: The assessee was not a manufacturer within Section 2(e-1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was upheld and the revenue challenge was rejected, leaving the assessee free from the disputed tax liability on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere purchase and dealing in empty bottles does not amount to manufacture unless the assessee itself carries out the collecting activity that the statute treats as manufacture.

---