TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act", for short). It is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased "Vikram three wheeler chassis" upon issuing III-A form from M/s. Scooters India Ltd. It did not pay any purchase tax in respect of the purchases made from M/s. Appolo Builders. Appellant was held to be liable to pay purchase tax on the premise that upon mounting the body of auto rickshaw on the chassis and sale having not been made on the same condition and form, purchase tax was leviable. The contention of the appellant is that having regard to the provisions contained in section 3-AAAA of the Act, no purchase tax is payable as the condition remained the same. In any event having regard to entry 43B and having regard to the fact both chassis and body of three wheelers came within the purview of "auto rickshaw", which find place in the same entry, no tax was payable. Reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on the decision of Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-I v. Rajesh Motors [1997] 107 STC 468, the decision of a Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal as also the decision of Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion: "2. I further certify that our said firm has purchased for sale in the same condition . . . . . . . . . . (description of goods) against bill/cash memo No. . . . . . . . . . . dated . . . . . . . from M/s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place . . . . . Date. . . . . ." Entry at serial No. 43(1)(b) contained in the notification dated September 7, 1981 reads as under: "43(1)(b). Motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi cars, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, mopeds, motorettes, motor omni-buses, motor vans, motor lorries, motor trucks, jeeps, station wagons and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers or motor caravans built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles, but excluding tractors whether on wheels or on tracts." The entry states which goods would come within the purview of the "motor vehicle" for the levy of the tax. It does not say even if tax had not been paid, despite changes in the form, no tax would be payable. In our opinion, the goods in terms of the aforementioned condition contained in form III-A should, thus, have been made for in the same condition. It is not in dispute that the appellant sold auto ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a combination of chassis and the body mounted thereupon, and not body or chassis separately. If it is so done, consequences may be different. Furthermore, the definition of "manufacture" under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is different from the one under the U. P. Act, which is as under: "'Manufacture' includes every processing of goods which bring into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity but shall not include such processing as may be notified by the State Government." A bare comparison of the definitions of the said term under the Rajasthan Act and the U. P. Act categorically points out that the definition of "manufacture" under the latter is wider. This has been so held in Sonebhadra Fuels v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P., Lucknow [2006] 7 SCC 322 See [2006] 147 STC 594 (SC). in the following terms: "We may mention that, as noted above, decisions construing the word 'manufacture' in other statutes are not necessarily applicable when interpreting section 2(e-1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act. As stated above, the definition of 'manufacture' in section 2(e-1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act is very wide, which includes processing, treating or adapting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well as characteristics, as compared to coal-dust." We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that a division Bench of this court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 3 SCC 338 See [2006] 145 STC 176 (SC)., in view of the provisions of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 had referred the question of interpretation of the words "in relation to such exports" to a larger Bench, noticing the decisions of this court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 2 SCC 47 See [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC)., on the one hand and Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 3 SCC 469 See [1986] 63 STC 239 (SC)., and Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1996] 1 SCC 468 See [1996] 100 STC 571 (SC)., on the other. We, however, are not concerned with such a question in this case. We may also notice that the term "manufacture " has been considered in Kores India Ltd., Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2005] 1 SCC 385 by this court stating: "At this juncture it is relevant to point out that the assessee had contended before the Collector that the inputs/r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... General Sales Tax Act. The assessee therein used to carry on business of manufacturing and selling of canned fruit. Having regard to the factual matrix involved therein it was held that there was no difference between pineapple fruit and the canned pineapple slices. Pio Food [1980] Supp SCC 174(1) was followed by this court in Sterling Foods [1986] 3 SCC 469 See [1980] 63 STC 239 (SC). Therein again the court was concerned with selling of shrimps. It was held: "Here in the present case, it was not disputed on behalf of the Revenue that the purchases of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters were made by the appellants for the purpose of fulfilling existing contracts for export and after making such purchases the appellants subjected raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by them to the process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing and exported such processed and frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters in fulfilment of the contracts for export. The only argument raised on behalf of the Revenue was that the goods which were exported were not the same as the goods purchased by the appellants because raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters after processing ....