Manufacture for concessional tax: Hot Mix contractor treated as manufacturer, and writ relief granted against jurisdictional defect.

A contractor manufacturing Hot Mix material for road construction was treated as a manufacturer for the purpose of the Uttar Pradesh VAT notification on concessional diesel oil and furnace oil. The text states that the statutory definitions of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" under the Trade Tax law and VAT Act were materially similar, and that the works-contract explanation could not override the notification's use of the manufacturer concept. It also notes that the availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ relief where the administrative action was without jurisdiction or otherwise untenable. The impugned order and show-cause notice were set aside, and Form-D authentication was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a contractor manufacturing Hot Mix material for road construction was a "manufacturer" entitled to Form-D and the concessional rate of tax on diesel oil and furnace oil under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act and the notification dated 10 January 2008. (ii) Whether the impugned administrative order and show-cause notice could be interfered with despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue (i): Whether a contractor manufacturing Hot Mix material for road construction was a "manufacturer" entitled to Form-D and the concessional rate of tax on diesel oil and furnace oil under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act and the notification dated 10 January 2008.

Analysis: The definition of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" under the earlier Trade Tax law and the VAT Act was substantially similar. Hot Mix material was treated as a manufactured taxable commodity, and the earlier decision recognising such activity was affirmed. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) dealing with works contracts could not override the statutory definition of "manufacturer" for the purpose of the notification granting concessional rate on diesel oil used in manufacture. Diesel oil and furnace oil were non-VAT goods, so the denial of Form-D on the footing that the petitioner was not a manufacturer was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be treated as a manufacturer for the purpose of the notification and was entitled to Form-D and the concessional rate of tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned administrative order and show-cause notice could be interfered with despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The rule of alternative remedy is discretionary and not a bar where the impugned action is without jurisdiction or otherwise legally untenable. The Commissioner's order bound the assessing authority and the show-cause notice was founded upon that order. The writ had also been entertained earlier and interim directions had operated, so relegating the petitioner to another remedy at that stage was not appropriate.

Conclusion: The availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction in the case.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order and show-cause notice were set aside, and the petitioner was granted the consequential mandamus for issuance and authentication of Form-D certificates for purchase of diesel oil and furnace oil for manufacture of Hot Mix material.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and the governing notification treat the activity as manufacture for concessional taxation, a works contractor manufacturing Hot Mix material cannot be denied the benefit by relying on the explanation to input-tax provisions, and writ relief may be granted when the administrative action is without jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy.

---