Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. vs State of M.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 31, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511332

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/511332
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.M. Sapre, J.
Decided On: Aug 31, 2004
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1698 of 2003, M.P. Nos. 1699 and 1700 of 2003
Subject: Sales Tax
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sales Tax - Imposition of - Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Article 285 of Constitution of India - Petitioner no.1 is Railway and petitioner no.2 is it's department who run departmental catering service - In course of its catering activity, petitioners sell 'coal ash' - Petitioner no.1 assessed for im...

Key legal issue: Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958; Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Sections 20(2); Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941; ;Customs Act, 1962; Constitution of India - Article 285

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Advocate Y.J. Mehta, Sr. Counsel and ;Patel, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P. and ors.

Advocate Amit Agrawal, Government Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958; Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Sections 20(2); Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941; ;Customs Act, 1962; Constitution of India - Article 285
Cases Referred: Collector of Customs v. State of West Bengal
Reported In: [2006]146STC213(MP)

Excerpt

..... and also not available for being urged - in view of aforesaid discussion, no merit in petition hence, dismissed - section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined..........the strength of this submission learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order is not legally sustainable and deserve to be quashed. in reply, learned counsel for the state placing reliance on law laid down in two decisions of the supreme court reported in air 1963 sc 1760 [sea customs act (1878), section 20(2) in re] and : 1998(102)elt513(sc) (collector of customs v. state of west bengal), contended that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner is no longer available to the petitioner to urge and stands decided against the petitioner in these two decisions.7. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, i am of the view that what is urged by the state counsel in reply appears to have force. as a consequence, the petition has no merit.8. as rightly urged by learned counsel for the state, the issue involved in this case no longer remains res integra and stands answered by the two decisions of the supreme court, referred supra. indeed, it is clear when i read the facts of the case reported in the case of collector of customs v. state of west bengal : 1998(102)elt513(sc) . this is what is held by the supreme court in this case:

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of other two petitions being M.P. No. 1699 and W.P. No. 1700 because, all these cases arise out of common impugned order and secondly, they arise between the same parties.

2. The challenge in this writ is to a revisional order, dated December 3, 2002 (annexure P-l), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, whereby the revision file.0d by the petitioner against an order of reassessment dated April 16, 1996 passed by an assessing officer (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax) for the period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 has been dismissed which was originally assessed by order dated December 30, 1993 by the assessing officer.

3. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the departments of petitioner No. 1--which is a Railway. The petitioner is running a Departmental Catering Services for the passengers. It is in the course of this activity the petitioner sells in open market 'coal ash'. The petitioner No. 1 is being assessed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) and is also registered as dealer.

4. One of the questions that arose for consideration in assessment proceeding was whether 'coal ash' is a taxable commodity under the Act and secondly, whether petitioner could be assessed at all under the Act they being a Union of India. Both these issues were decided against the petitioner, the same is reiterated in these writ petitions which are filed for the different periods. Notice of the writ is issued to respondents. They are served and represented.

5. Heard Shri Y.I. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Patel for the petitioners and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

6. Placing reliance on article 285 of the Constitution of India, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that petitioners cannot be subjected to any tax under taxing law. According to learned Counsel, the petitioner being Union of India, they are immune from any taxation. It is his submission, that imposition of sales tax on the sale of commodity 'coal ash' under the State Sales Tax Act is not legally permissible in view of mandate contained A under article 285 of Constitution. It is on the strength of this submission learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order is not legally sustainable and deserve to be quashed. In reply, learned Counsel for the State placing reliance on law laid down in two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1760 [Sea Customs Act (1878), Section 20(2) In re] and : 1998(102)ELT513(SC) (Collector of Customs v. State of West Bengal), contended that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner is no longer available to the petitioner to urge and stands decided against the petitioner in these two decisions.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am of the view that what is urged by the State Counsel in reply appears to have force. As a consequence, the petition has no merit.

8. As rightly urged by learned Counsel for the State, the issue involved in this case no longer remains res integra and stands answered by the two decisions of the Supreme Court, referred supra. Indeed, it is clear when I read the facts of the case reported in the case of Collector of Customs v. State of West Bengal : 1998(102)ELT513(SC) . This is what is held by the Supreme Court in this case:

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2004 Same Parties Union of India (Uoi) and anr. vs State of M.P. and ors. Same Subject Sales Tax Same Judge A.M. Sapre, J. Acts & Sections Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958; Sea Customs Act, ...

Sales Tax