TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o include within it such processes which have been amended in the eligibility certificate as process of manufacture and therefore eligible to the benefit of deferral of sales tax?" Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are as follows: (a) On May 7, 1993, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Package Scheme of Incentive 1993 with the objective of achieving dispersal of industries to under-developed and developing areas of Maharashtra State. (b) In view of the representation made in 1993 scheme, the petitioner established a factory in 1997 for processing of hot/cold roll coils at Ranjangaon, MIDC, Tal. Shirol, District Pune. Originally, the petitioner was registered as dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Sales Tax Act"). The sales tax registration was amended to indicate that with effect from April 16, 1999, the petitioner was manufacturer under the Sales Tax Act. In the meantime, on May 14, 1998, the petitioner was registered as an industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. (c) On August 8, 1999, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the State of Maharashtra to avail of the benefits of 1993 Scheme. The agreement pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner's order dated September 2, 2002 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to entitlement certificate). So far as, Appeal No. 31 of 2000 is concerned, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax dated January 12, 2000 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision under section 52 of the Sales Tax Act. So far as Appeal No. 172 of 2000 is concerned the Tribunal took a view that the Sales Tax Department ought to issue an entitlement certificate on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued by SICOM. (g) Thereafter, the petitioner realized that there was a mistake in eligibility certificate, as it did not provide that its final product was a result of manufacture by slitting, pickling and cutting to length of HR and CR coils into sheets. Thereafter, on an application by the petitioner, by communication dated January 28, 2009 SICOM substituted manufactured goods in the eligibility certificate dated October 4, 2008 to read as under: "Slit, pickled and cut to length (CR and HR) sheets." (h) Consequent to the above modification to eligibility certificate, the petitioner applied to the Sales Tax Department to issue an adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....993 Scheme that the unit was set up in a developing area. Thus it would be unfair to deprive the petitioner of the promised benefit; (b) The Government of Maharashtra through its agent SICOM on January 20, 2009, has issued addenda/amendment to the eligibility certificate dated October 4, 2008 by which slit, pickled and cut to length (CR/HR) coils into sheets have been substituted as the final/manufactured product in the certificate dated October 4, 2008. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the Appeal No. 172 of 2000, the Commissioner of Sales Tax is duty-bound to issue the entitlement certificate and the issue of manufacture or not can be considered at the time of assessment when the returns are filed. (c) The impugned order dated February 26, 2010 of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (H. Q.) examining the issue of manufacture is completely without jurisdiction. This is for the reason that the eligibility certificate dated October 4, 2008 and certificate of entitlement dated August 27, 2008 clearly specifies that the same is issued subject to the provision of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT). In terms of section 89 of the MVAT Act, the Commissioner of Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... differently from the inputs/raw materials used in the process. This investigation of fact cannot be gone into by this court and therefore the matter be remanded to the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (H.Q.) for determining the same on the submission of evidence by the petitioner; (c) The issue of eligibility certificate by the agency, namely, SICOM under the 1993 Scheme would not ipso facto lead to a grant of entitlement certificate. This is particularly so as the 1993 Scheme came into force when Sales Tax Act was in force. Therefore, in terms of section 38(4) of the Sales Tax Act, the Sales Tax Officer has to determine whether or not deferment of tax is to be granted and for that purpose he has to independently determine whether or not the process carried out by the petitioner is manufacturing process. Further, in terms of rule 31B of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Sales Tax Department has to independently determine whether or not the process is one of manufacture. The MVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder would have no application and the matter would be strictly governed by the Sales Tax Act in view of saving clause provided under the MVAT Act. (d) The present pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out by the petitioner amounts to a manufacturing process needs to be determined by the authorities and for that purpose the matter be remanded to the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax. We are not impressed. We are of the view that in the present facts no occasion arises to remand the matter to the authorities under the Sales Tax Act to determine whether the process carried out by the petitioner amounts to manufacturing activities. This is for more than one reason. Firstly, the sales tax authorities while assessing the petitioner have passed assessment orders consistently from the year 2001-02 onwards holding that the petitioner is manufacturer of HR sheets as per customers requirement. It is on the basis of the aforesaid finding that the respondents have collected tax from the petitioner at a higher rate. These assessment orders passed by the assessing officer over a period of four years under the Sales Tax Act has not been challenged in appeal/ revision by the Revenue. Therefore, there has been a determination that the petitioner's activity/process of slitting, pickling and cutting to length of HR/CR coils into sheets is a manufacturing activity. Further, the Tribunal in the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been satisfied by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to a grant of the entitlement certificate, no sooner it has received the eligibility certificate from the implementing agency under the 1993 Scheme. It would therefore be noticed that the petitioner is entitled to grant of an addenda to the entitlement certificate dated August 27, 2008 in line with/in accordance with the addenda dated January 20, 2009 issued to eligibility certificate dated October 4, 2008. The respondent placed heavy reliance upon the Larger Bench decision of Tribunal in the matter of Jaison Ammonia and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra decided on July 26, 2002 in support of its submission that the sales tax authorities has to independently determine whether the activity amounts to manufacturing activity independently of the eligibility certificate issued by the implementing agency. In the aforesaid decision, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view that an entitlement certificate can only be issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax if he is satisfied that the unit to whom eligibility certificate is given is carrying on manufacturing activity/process. The af....