2006 (3) TMI 765 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Manufactured steel goods qualify for CST Act exemption under Section 14(iv)(v)

Prateek Technocom Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cto And Ors.

The Court held that the assessee-petitioner was entitled to exemption under the notification dated 12.3.1997 as the manufactured goods, steel structurals, ... - Issues:Claim for exemption under notification dated 12.3.1997; Interpretation of manufacturing activity for tax liability; Imposition of tax, surcharge, and penalty; Appeal against Tax Board's decision; Entitlement to exemption under Section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act, 1956.Claim for Exemption under Notification dated 12.3.1997:The assessee-petitioner sought exemption from tax under the notification No. 1082 dated 12.3.1997, which required the use of iron and steel as raw material in the manufacture of iron and steel specified in Section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act, 1956. The Assessing Authority initially denied the exemption, stating that the goods sold did not fall within the specified category. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, holding that the manufactured goods were indeed steel structurals falling under Section 14(iv)(v). The Tax Board later overturned this decision, leading to the revision petitions filed by the assessee-petitioner under Section 86 of the Act.Interpretation of Manufacturing Activity for Tax Liability:The key contention revolved around whether the fabrication activity undertaken by the assessee-petitioner amounted to manufacturing, impacting the tax liability. The petitioner argued that even if their activity did not constitute manufacturing, they should still be exempt from purchase tax under the notification. The Revenue, on the other hand, emphasized that the processing activities undertaken did not amount to manufacturing, justifying the imposition of additional purchase tax. The Court clarified that the focus should be on whether the finished goods, i.e., steel structurals, fell within the definition of Section 14(iv)(v) of the Act, regardless of the manufacturing process.Imposition of Tax, Surcharge, and Penalty:The Assessing Authority imposed tax on the assessee-petitioner, along with a surcharge and penalty for alleged misuse of declaration form ST 17. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partially set aside the tax, but the Tax Board reinstated the tax liability. The Court analyzed the conditions of the notification and the relevant provisions to determine the correctness of the tax imposition.Appeal Against Tax Board's Decision:The revision petitions challenged the Tax Board's decision, arguing for the entitlement to exemption under the notification dated 12.3.1997. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the interpretation of the notification's conditions and the applicability of Section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act to the goods in question.Entitlement to Exemption under Section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act, 1956:Ultimately, the Court held that the assessee-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the notification dated 12.3.1997. It emphasized that the manufactured goods, specifically steel structurals, fell within the ambit of Section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act, satisfying the conditions for exemption. The Court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the Tax Board's order and ruling in favor of the assessee-petitioner.