WIPRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 purportedly clarifying the import of earlier circulars dated February 13, 1978, June 21, 1978, December 1, 1979, January 9, 1985 and January 14, 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of consumer products like vanaspati and toilet soaps, etc. , in its factories at Amalner in Jalgaon district in Maharashtra State and Tumkur in Karnataka State. It has been registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the State Act") as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Central Act" ). The said products manufactured in the State of Maharashtra are sold not only in the State of Maharashtra but in other States as well and the raw materials required are also procured from Maharashtra as well as other States.

(3.) THE dealers in the State of Maharashtra used to effect purchases by giving declaration in form No. 15 to the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short, "the State Rules") for the raw material requirements. It was necessary that the raw materials so purchased were utilised for the manufacture of goods which were sold in Maharashtra. If the goods were exported out of Maharashtra State the concessions for purchase of raw material on furnishing form No. 15 invited penal action as set out in Section 14 of the State Act. Section 13aa was introduced by Maharashtra Act No. 28 of 1982 in the State Act with effect from July 1, 1982. As per the said new provision a dealer shall be liable to pay, in addition to the sales tax paid or payable, if any, or, as the case may be, the purchase tax levied or leviable, if any, under the other provisions of this Act if the goods manufactured on the basis of raw material procured by furnishing form No. 15 were totally or partly exported out of State of Maharashtra. This amendment perhaps was the fallout of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Berar Oil Industries [19751 36 STC 473. Subsequent to the said decision, the State Government had issued a circular on February 13, 1978 granting concessions on furnishing form No. 15 and diluting the principles set out in the case of Berar Oil Industries [1975] 36 STC 473 (Bom ).