Manufacture and tax remission for packaged drinking water failed where purification and packing did not create a new commercial commodity.

Purification and packing of raw water into packaged drinking water was not manufacture under the 2003 tax law, because it did not create a new and distinct commercial commodity. The later remission scheme, framed under the transitional provision of the 2003 Act, operated only for eligible units manufacturing goods in Assam and had to conform to that statute. Earlier eligibility certificates, the prior concession structure, and promissory estoppel could not override the statutory scheme, and exemption notifications were required to be construed strictly. Tax remission for the unexpired period was therefore denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether a unit engaged in purification and packing of raw water as packaged drinking water was entitled to continue sales tax exemption or tax remission for the unexpired period under the earlier concession scheme and the substituted remission scheme, notwithstanding the statutory definition of manufacture under the later tax law.

Analysis: The concessional regime under the earlier industrial policy and the 1997 concession scheme was linked to manufactured finished products and later stood substituted by the 2005 remission scheme framed under the transitional provision of the 2003 tax statute. The later scheme was expressly required to operate in conformity with the 2003 Act, and remission under that scheme was available only where the eligible unit manufactured goods in Assam. The Court applied the statutory definition of manufacture under the 2003 Act and the earlier binding precedent holding that purification of raw water into packaged drinking water does not bring into existence a new and distinct commercial commodity. On that basis, the activity of converting raw water into packaged drinking water was held not to amount to manufacture. The claim based on prior eligibility certificates, promissory estoppel, and the earlier concession structure could not override the statutory scheme, and exemption notifications were required to be construed strictly.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to tax remission on packaged drinking water under the 2003 Act and the 2005 scheme.

---