TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry Tax Act. 3. The present revision has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2024 on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of penalty levied under Section 34 (8) of UP Value Added Tax Act read with Section 12 (5) of the Entry Tax Act?" 4. Learned ACSC for the revisionist submits that the opposite party is a registered dealer and is carrying out business of purchase of H.R. Coil and thereafter, manufacturing activity is being undertaken and convert H.R. Coil into H.R. Sheets. The opposite party being manufacturer was liable to pay the entry tax on the sale of H.R. Sheets as requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and State of Maharastra Vs. Mahalaxmi Stores, 2003 1 SCC 70. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that in the case of M/s S.R. Tissue (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court has taken a view that process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to sizes off jumbo rolls of tissue paper would not amount to manufacture and similarly in the case of Mahalaxmi Stores (supra), the Apex Court has held that when stone boulders were crushed into stone chips, gitti and stone ballast, the process could not be termed as manufacture. He submits that the present case is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 10. The only dispute wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is whether sub-rule (1) of r. 16 became invalid when this Court declared sub-rule (2) invalid in Mehtab's Case MANU/SC/0352/1962MANU/SC/0352/1962 : (1963) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 435. The contention for the petitioner is that it became invalid because hides and skins, whether tanned or untanned, constituted one commodity and that therefore tax cannot be levied on the sale of hides and skins in the raw condition when no tax is levied on the sale of hides and skins in the tanned condition. It is contended for the State that they are different commodities, and constitute two separate categories for purposes of taxation. We are inclined to the view that they form different categories. 15. Hides and skins in the untanned condition are u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 MANU /SC/0096/1953 : [1954] 1 SCR 53 in which it was held that raw cashew nuts become a different commodity commercially after the application of certain processes as a result of which they are converted into edible kernels. 22. It is therefore not correct to say that the process of tanning brings about no change in the raw hides and skins and that therefore both types of hides and skins form one commodity. 23. The petitioners rely on two cases in support of their contention that the tanned and untanned hides and skins do not form different commodities but constitute one commodity. 24. In Abdul Subban and Co. v. State of Madras MANU/TN/0287/1959MANU/TN/0287/1959 : 11 S.T.C. 173 is the observation : "Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the articles constitute one and the same thing. 28. In this connection we may refer to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Section 4 of this Act provides that the sales tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods will be payable at the rate and only at the point specified against each article in the II Schedule. 29. The Second Schedule refers to raw hides and skins separately from dressed hides and skins against serial No. 7. The rate of tax is different and so is the point at which the tax is to be levied. This will indicate that in 1959 the legislature in Madras considered raw hides and skins a different commodity from dressed hides and skins. There is no good reason why the legislature be not attributed the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des and skins and after tanning successive sales of tanned hides and skins. 34. The real question is whether these provisions treat raw hides and skins and dressed or tanned hides and skins as one class of goods for the purpose of taxation or as two different classes of goods. If they treat them as one class of goods, the contention for the petitioner loses force as taxing of hides and skins at the time of their sale in a raw condition meets the requirements of law as hides and skins could be taxed only at a single point. If the dressed or tanned hides and skins are not taxed at the time of their sale that does not offend against the statutory provisions. No question of discrimination arises as a sale of raw hides and skins of what....