TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pool charges" recovered by the opponent-assessee from its distributors at the rate of Rs. 10 per vehicle did not form a part of the sale price of the vehicle as defined in section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? (ii) When the opponent-assessee bought raw materials against a certificate in form 15 issued under section 11(1A)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and used the same in the manufacture of motor vehicles which were not sold but were capitalised, was the Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that such use of the raw materials did not amount to use for another purpose contrary to the certificate in form 15 within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Act?" 2.. The counsel are agreed that the first question is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the vehicles by the assessee for its own business was not in violation of the provisions of section 11(1A) or the undertaking given in form 15 and consequently the provisions of section 14(1) of the Act were not attracted. 6.. The case of the department is that the provisions of section 11(1A) and the undertaking given by the assessee in form 15 are in absolute terms and, therefore, unless the motor cars manufactured with the use of raw materials and/or components so purchased were actually sold, the assessee was in violation of the provisions of section 11(1A) and undertaking given in form 15 and consequently liable to differential duty/tax under section 14(1). Section 14(1), it was stated, was very clear as to its contents. It provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make such a use as a use in breach of the undertaking. Use of the cars in the assessee's own business was interlinked with the carrying on of the business, that it could not be held that the cars were put to use other than contemplated in the certificate. Besides relying on the Tribunal's order, Shri Shah invited the court's attention to a Gujarat High Court decision in Ruby Laboratories v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 27 STC 326. The assessee in that case was manufacturing medicines. Samples of medicines were supplied free to the doctors with a view to promote sales. The question arose whether the distribution of medicines by way of free samples constituted a use different from the use contemplated in the certificate so as to attract t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r such certificate; and accordingly, he shall include the purchase price thereof, in his turnover of purchases in his return under section 32 which he is to furnish next thereafter: ........................ " It is not necessary to reproduce form 15 as the form contained nothing more than that was provided in section 11(1A). Form 15, it may be stated, was subsequently amended as a result of which the undertaking about the sale of goods, as a fact, was made explicit. An attempt was made on behalf of the assessee to suggest that but for the amendment the undertaking was not so rigid. Apart from the fact that the amendment in form 15 merely uses the word of emphasis section 14(1) continues to remain couched in the same language. Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds for sale at the time of purchases becomes immaterial inasmuch as section 14(1) clearly refers to the actual use of the articles so manufactured. This is what this Court has observed in [1985] 59 STC 10 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. East Asiatic Commercial Co.) in paragraph 19 at page 17 as under: "...What is the meaning to be given to the phrase 'contrary to such certificates?' In all certificates given under sections 11 and 12 save and except for the certificates which are required to be given under section 12(c) and 12(e), the dealer concerned states that he will either use the goods in a certain manner or will resell the goods or export them, etc. In the case of some certificates the period within which the goods have to be so deal....