TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner is entitled to exemption from payment of tax on the purchases of raw materials required for the manufacture of waterproof rolls and sheets. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of waterproof packing rolls and sheets. The manufacturing process of the petitioner is that a kraft paper is bituminised on one side and then it is bounded with hessian or polythene sheets. In short the bitumen layer is sandwiched by kraft paper and by hessian or polythene. The petitioner was granted a recognition certificate (annexure 2 to the petition) in May, 1976, and, therefore, purchases of the manufacturing materials, namely, the kraft paper, bitumen, hessian and polythene sheets, were fully exempted from tax. The petitioner receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication. It is contended that the petitioner was granted a recognition certificate; as such, under section 4-B of the Act in May, 1976, and that it continued to avail exemption until the date of service of the show cause notice. It is averred that the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2 is absolutely without jurisdiction, as exemption of tax on purchases of raw materials is available to the petitioner under clause 2 of the notification read with item 4 of annexure III to the notification. On these averments, the petitioner claims that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents and they be stopped from taking any action pursuant to the said show cause notice and that it be declared that the petitioner is entitled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d together and common submissions had been made in both the petitions by Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and by Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel. By our order dated 6th February, 1986, the writ petition of Mahabir Industries [1987] 65 STC 251 (All.) was allowed. It was held therein that the manufacturing activity of that petitioner was covered by clause 2, read with item 4 of annexure III to the notification and not by clause 3 of the notification. In short, it was held that the petitioner M/s. Mahabir Industries was not engaged in the manufacture of paper within the meaning of clause 3 of the notification, but its product, namely, waterproof packing rolls and sheets are different from paper and, theref....