PREMCHAND JHANJI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of boot polish and is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The boot polish manufactured by him is packed in different sizes of tin-dibbies and the said dibbies are enclosed in cartons made out of box-board or gray-board. Similarly, the boot polish manufactured by the petitioner is covered with aluminium-foils after the same is filled in the dibbies. The petitioner applied before the Sales Tax Officer, Circle II, Gwalior, for inclusion of the tin-plates, labels, aluminium-foils, box-board and gray-board in the registration certificate on the ground that these articles were utilised by him as raw materials in the manufacture of the boot polish. It is the claim of the petitioner that the tin-dibbies and the cartons are manufactured by him in his own factory. The Sales Tax Officer refused to include these articles in the registration certificate by his order dated 26th July, 1965. The petitioner thereupon moved the Sales Tax Commissioner, M. P. , Indore, for clarification, but the Commissioner has passed no orders. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to include the above-mentioned articles as raw materials in the registration certificate issued to the petitioner under Rule 8 framed under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act.

(2.) SECTION 8 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained but subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, the rate of tax payable on the sale to or purchase by a registered, dealer of any raw material for the manufacture of other goods for sale in the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be one per cent. of the sale or purchase price of such raw material. "manufacture" as defined under the Act includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods. Under the Act "raw material" means an article used as an ingredient in any manufactured goods or an article consumed in the process of manufacture and includes fuel and lubricants required for the process of manufacture. The petitioner is admittedly a manufacturer of boot polish. It is an admitted position that the articles, referred to above, are used for the purposes of packing the boot polish manufactured by the petitioner. The packing of the boot polish so manufactured cannot be said to be "any process or manner of producing, preparing or making" the boot polish. The said articles cannot also be included in the definition of "raw material" as they are not used as ingredients in the manufacture of boot polish ; nor are they articles consumed in the process of manufacture. It has been observed in Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. [1956] 7 S. T. C. 527 at p. 535 by Sinha, J. : The process of manufacture relates to the conversion from the raw material to the finished goods. When we speak of goods being required in the manufacturing process, we talk of goods which have gone to the making of it. We respectfully concur with the above-said observation. It is common ground that only that material, which is raw material used as an ingredient in the manufacture of goods, can be included in the registration certificate. As already indicated, raw material means an article used as an ingredient in any manufactured goods or an article consumed in the process of manufacture. The packing material cannot be said to be an article used as an ingredient in the manufacture of boot polish ; nor can it be described as an article consumed in the process of manufacture of boot polish. These articles are utilised for the purposes of packing for the facility of sale. The words used in the definition of "raw material" are "an article used as an ingredient in any manufactured goods or an article consumed in the process of manufacture. " If the interpretation of the petitioner is accepted, the words used would have been "in connection with or in relation to manufacture of goods". It is, therefore, plain that the contention of the petitioner that the above-said articles are utilised in the manufacture of the boot polish cannot be sustained.

(3.) THE petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of the security deposit, if any, after deduction of costs, shall be refunded to the petitioner.