Public utility and regulatory functions remain charitable where fees are merely incidental to statutory standard-setting and certification.

A statutory body performing standardisation, marking and quality certification was treated as advancing an object of general public utility because its functions were public-oriented, regulatory and aimed at consumer protection. Receipt of licence fees and certification charges did not change that character, as the revenue was incidental to the statutory mandate. The proviso to section 2(15) was held inapplicable because the activities were not commercial trade, commerce or business, nor services in relation thereto. On that basis, withdrawal of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) was unjustified and the exemption was continued under the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bureau's statutory functions of standardisation, marking and quality certification amounted to advancement of an object of general public utility under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the receipt of licence fees and certification charges made the Bureau's activities an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or a service in relation thereto, so as to attract the proviso to section 2(15) and justify withdrawal of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv).

Issue (i): Whether the Bureau's statutory functions of standardisation, marking and quality certification amounted to advancement of an object of general public utility under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Bureau was constituted under the statutory scheme to develop standards, certify quality, and protect consumers. Those functions were held to be public-oriented and regulatory in character, and therefore within the general category of objects of general public utility. The receipt of fees did not alter the essential character of the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: Yes. The Bureau's activities fell within advancement of an object of general public utility.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipt of licence fees and certification charges made the Bureau's activities an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or a service in relation thereto, so as to attract the proviso to section 2(15) and justify withdrawal of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv).

Analysis: The proviso to section 2(15) was held to target commercial activity carried on for profit. The Bureau's licensing and certification functions were regulatory and sovereign in nature, performed as an instrumentality of the State, and any revenue generated was merely incidental. They were not treated as trade, commerce or business, nor as rendering services in relation to such activity. Consequently, the exemption could not be denied on that ground.

Conclusion: No. The proviso to section 2(15) was not attracted, and withdrawal of exemption was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned withdrawal of exemption was quashed, and the Bureau was held entitled to continue to receive exemption under the statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body performing regulatory and sovereign functions in furtherance of public standards and consumer protection does not carry on trade, commerce or business merely because it levies fees incidental to those functions, and such activity remains charitable as advancement of general public utility unless the dominant character is commercial.

---