TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, order or direction setting aside the Impugned Order dated November 30, 2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment period January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 rejecting ITC claim of Rs. 98,50,636; ii. Issue any writ, order or direction setting aside the Impugned Circular bearing No. 4411 dated 23.01.2013, issued by the Respondent No. 1; iii. Issue any writ, order or direction holding that Section 6(3)(d) of the UKVAT Act, does not restrict / deny ITC claim on packaging material, containers etc. purchased locally, used in the manufacture of goods in Uttarakhand and sent outside the State otherwise than by way of "sale"; iv. Alternate to prayer (iii) above and in the event this Hon'be Court is to hold that Section 6(3)(d) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petitions were dismissed at the admission stage. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Siddharth Bawa along with Sri Ramji Srivastava and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Anil Kumar Joshi. 4. Sri Siddharth Bawa, learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court has only rejected the special leave petitions in limine, but he points out that it must be noted that no reasons were given. He, therefore, submits that there is no merger and it cannot, therefore, be taken that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." and the words "in the course of Inter-State trade or commerce". He would emphasize that ordinarily when the word "or" is used, it is meant to be disjunctive. He fairly submits that it can in appropriate cases be used as "and". He would further seek to emphasize that the proviso, which refers to Clause (d) is not to be treated as a substantive provision in itself, which is what this Court did in the writ petitions filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited. In this context, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2015(10) SCALE 444. There, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question as to whether, a person, who is a victim within the meaning o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orced from their context" (Thompson v. Dibdin 1912 AC 533). If the rule of construction is that prima facie a proviso should be limited in its operation to the subject matter of the enacting clause, the stand we have taken is sound. To expand the enacting clause, inflated by the proviso, sins against the fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction." 7. We may notice that in the judgment of this Court, against which, the special lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her words, when goods are sent by way of stock transfer in the course of inter-State trade, the case would not be covered by Section 6(3)(d) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. The intention of the legislature was to provide limited relief of providing input tax credit, but confined to raw materials, which are used in the manufacture or processing of finished goods, which are sent by way of stock transfer as a case of stock transfer cannot be treated as a case of sale. In such circumstances, we would think that the proviso would appear to be an independent provision and the concept of sale would apply to both an intra-State sale, as also, inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Section 6(3)(d) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. In other words....