ANGLO AMERICAN DIRECT TEA TRADING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SRIRANGAM DIVISION SRIRANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions the question involved is whether the petitioner in each of these writ petitions is entitled to claim from the Central sales tax authorities to have certain specified articles being included in its Central sales tax registration certificate issued under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. The facts in Writ Petition No. 693 of 1969 may be noted as the facts in the other cases are similar. The petitioner, a company incorporated in Great Britain and having its registered office in Glasgow in Scotland, carries on business of tea planting and manufacturing in the States of Kerala, Madras and Assam. The petitioner-company has a sales office in Tiruchirapalli and owns tea estates in the Anamallais in the Madras State. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and liable to pay sales tax thereunder. As such dealer, he made an application for registration under the Act under section 7 and for the issuance of a certificate under section 7(4) to enable him to purchase, in the course of inter-State trade, certain materials or goods, which according to the petitioner, were required in the process or in the manufacture of the goods, manufactured by him for sale. It is not in dispute that such a certificate was granted from time to time. On 27th January, 1967, a registration certificate was issued to the petitioner whereunder certain goods were listed as goods which the petitioner could include in the certificate of registration within the meaning of section 8(3) of the Act and rule 13 of the Rules framed thereunder. Soon thereafter the registering authority was of the view that the certificate so issued was comprehensive and therefore a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him as to why certain articles or goods should not be deleted from the certificate issued and stating that the certificate should be limited to such of those goods which are essential for the manufacture of tea by the petitioner. Ultimately, in 1968 after hearing the petitioner, it was found that the articles which were necessary for the petitioner in its capacity as an agriculturist growing tea, had to be excluded from its registration certificate. The respondent relying upon J.K. Cotton S. & W. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Office once again after hearing parties, confirmed the view that such goods as above are not includible in the registration certificate and accordingly decided to amend the certificate issued under the Act by deleting the articles mentioned in exhibit P-11 which is annexed to the affidavit in support of the writ petition and specified in paragraph 12 of the affidavit. This exclusion from the certificate is common to the three writ petitions. The statement showing the items of goods excluded from the Central sales tax registration certificate by the challenged order is reproduced for ready reference : "1. Cultivation. - Garden implements, irrigation equipment including water supply fittings, pumps, soil testing machines and laboratory stores, polythene bags, sheetings and ropes, seeds (tea and shade trees), mechanical saws, winches, soil fumigants, chemicals.

(2.) CROP protection. - Fertilisers, manures, insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, weedkillers, tree killers, dusting and spraying materials, blowers, chemicals, respirators, eye shields, sprayers, dusters and spares.

(3.) IN this view the Supreme Court held that drawing and photographic materials falling within the description of goods intended for use as "equipment" in the process of designing which is directly related to the actual production of goods and without which commercial production would be inexpedient must be regarded as goods intended for use "in the manufacture of goods".IN INdian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes the Supreme Court was considering the propriety of adding in the certificate locomotives and motor-vehicles used by a miner for carrying the finished products from the factory to the store. The Supreme Court answering the poser in the affirmative said that there is no ground for excluding locomotives and motor-vehicles used in carrying finished products from the factory.