TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82 of 1993. Earlier, all these cases were heard together and by judgment dated July 29, 1994 [reported as Jagannath Cotton Company, v. State of Orissa [1995] 96 STC 291 (Orissa)], the writ applications were disposed of. The order of reassessment impugned in O.J.C. No. 1166 of 1992 and the notices impugned in other writ petitions were set aside on a finding that the order of reassessment was illegal. The earlier judgment is reported in [1995] 96 STC 291 (Orissa) (Jagannath Cotton Company v. State oj'Orissa). Against the aforesaid judgment, the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Officer, Sambatpur (opposite parties 2 and 3) filed appeals in the Supreme Court which were numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 6627 to 6631 of 1995. Ultimately, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same, viz., whether different goods emerge as a result of application of such process. Apart from the above consideration, we must also see what are the provisions, if any, in the Orissa Sales Tax Act providing exemption from sales tax in the case of new industries and whether they are consistent with the provisions of I.P.R. or are they different. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the I.P.R. by itself is enough to provide the exemption from the sales tax. But where the provisions of the Sales Tax Act are also amended providing for exemption, then the court has to see whether they are the same as the I.P.R. or are they different-and if different, what is the effect of such difference. It is, therefore, necessa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner has filed further affidavit on November 17, 1995 in support of its contention describing the manufacturing process employed in the unit. No further counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. I or opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. 3.. In view of the observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jagannath Cotton Company [1995] 99 STC 83) and the contentions raised by either of the parties, the following questions are to be determined: (i) Whether there is any manufacturing process involved in producing "cotton" from "waste cotton"? and (ii) Whether the provisions of the Industrial Policy Resolution are consistent with the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture or manufacturing process as the State Government may, by notification, specify from time to time." As has been observed in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in [1995] 97 STC 375 (Sri Jagannath Industries v. State of Orissa) the definition clause introduced by way of amendment was essentially declaratory in nature and can be, read as intended to have retrospective effect. 6.. The word "manufacture" has been construed in several decisions of the Su preme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 922 (South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India); [1973] 32 STC 623 (Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana) and [1964] 15 STC 719 (Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras). The ratio of all these decisions is that every c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper' as understood in the popular sense of that term. Following the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court, it was held in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in [1995] 97 STC 375 (Sri Jagannath Industries v. State of Orissa) that the process undertaken in preparing exercise and bound books out of paper is "manufacturing process". 8.. There is no dispute that the raw material used is "waste cotton". Ordinarily, "waste cotton" has no use and it is an industrial waste product. By re-cycling such industrial waste product the petitioner-unit is producing "cotton" which has got several uses. The process of changing "waste botton" to "cotton" has been described by the petitioner in its additional affidavit filed on Nove....