TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc., as find mention in the registration certificate originally issued. Subsequently, the. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner purported to exercise the jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act suo motu, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the registration certificate be not amended. In response to this notice, Shri Manjo Kumar, accounts clerk, appeared on January 7, 1991, on behalf of the petitioner whereas Shri K.R. Garg, Excise and Taxation Officer, appeared on behalf of the State. However, the case could not be taken up as the Presiding Officer was out of station and so the same was adjourned to January 15, 1991. On this date, petitioner did not put in appearance and so the proceedings of the case were conducted against him. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner ordered for the deletion of certain items which were mentioned in the registration certificate on the ground that since the petitioner is wholly engaged in the manufacture of sugar which is a tax-free item covered by entry No. 62 of Schedule "B" and he is, thus not entitled to make purchases of those items on the strength of this registration certificate. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner could not amend the registration certificate by wrongly assuming that the petitioner deals with only sugar, a tax-free item. The Presiding Officer once again examined the various aspects in detail but somehow found no merit in any of the objections raised by the petitioner and thus, rejected the application vide order dated May 29, 1992, annexure P-4. Simultaneously, petitioner filed an application under section 22 of the Act for referring the following questions of law, which according to the petitioner arise out of the order dated November 13, 1991: "(i) Whether, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in the garb of exercise of his delegated powers under section 21 as Commissioner can amend/revise or cancel the registration certificate granted under section 7 of the Act? (ii) Whether it is the Commissioner alone who could change/alter, amend or cancel the registration certificate under section 7 and that too on the grounds specifically mentioned therein? (iii) Whether the so-called order of amendment impugned in revision petition virtually amounts to cancellation of registration certificate? (iv) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he suo motu powers of a revisional court and as and when any act is found prejudicial to the State, the revisional court can exercise supervisory powers and can pass any order in relation thereto as it may think fit. Respondents took support from the case J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 563 (SC) and contended that since by an error certain items were specified in the registration certificate, the same were ordered to be deleted under section 21 of the Act as the scope is very wide. On these submissions, it was prayed that the present petition is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings of the authorities on facts as well as law. According to counsel for the petitioner, respondents have wrongly assumed that the petitioner is exclusively manufacturing sugar whereas as per averments made and as per certificate of registration, petitioner not only manufactures sugar but molasses and bagasse as well. Sale of latter two items is subject to sales tax. This way the authority by wrongly assuming that petitioner only manufactures sugar, a tax-free item passed wholly erroneous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sugar mill to manufacture molasses or bagasse. It is in the process of refining sugar that these two residue items are separated and are sold in the market. It is different matter that molasses and bagasse have become valuable. This by itself would not lead us to conclude that the factory was set up to manufacture sugar, molasses and bagasse. Dominant purpose remains manufacturing of sugar, a tax-free item. All the items which have been ordered to be excluded from the registration certificate, annexure P-1, are in fact required for the smooth working of the plant and machinery set up to manufacture sugar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 563 for the view that the expression "in the manufacture of goods" should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that, but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would....