MAHALAXMI METAL QUARRY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT reference at the instance of the applicant -dealer is made by the learned Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal to this court for our opinion on the following questions:

(2.) MS . Gargi Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant, has vehemently submitted that as the activity of the applicant is to make small stones by hammering/cutting big stones and there was no activity of polishing and therefore, the said activity cannot be said to be "manufacture". It is submitted that as such there was no new product which was being manufactured and therefore, also, the activity of the applicant cannot be said to be "manufacture". She has heavily relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores reported in : [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC) : [2003] 152 ELT 30 (SC) : [2002] 9 JT SC 633 in support of her above submissions.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and even according to the applicant, activity of the applicant is hammering and cutting the big stones for the purpose of small stones. Therefore, the activity of the applicant is hammering and cutting marble and stone, more particularly, stones. The substituted section 2(16) of the Act, 1969 substituted by Gujarat Act 15 of 1989 with effect from April 1, 1989 reads as under: