LAWS(PAT)-1998-12-55

STEEL INDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On December 02, 1998
STEEL INDIA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition to review our judgment dated 19th August, 1998, whereby its writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1887 of 1998 (R), was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was granted exemption by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, vide order dated 30.4.1997 from payment of tax on purchases of raw materials under the Govt. Notification No. S.O. 95 dated 4.4.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification), which has provided incentive in the form of exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw material to those entrepreneurs who use the raw material so purchased in manufacturing the new finished goods. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Commissioner), in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act (hereinafter refereed to as the Act) after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner cancelled its exemption certificate on the ground that it does not manufacture new finished goods out of the raw material purchased and is involved only in cutting of iron sheets into smaller pieces. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on 19th August, 1998 by us. By this petition, the petitioner wants us to review our said judgment.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions in support of this petition: (i) We have not properly appreciated the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Orissa and Anr. v. Jagannath Cotton Co. and Anr. (1995) 99 STC 86, in its entirety; (ii) We have also failed to consider properly the judgment of this Court in Kross Manufactures v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1997 BRLJ 49; (iii) We have also not properly appreciated and applied the ratio of other judgments cited and referred to in our judgment dated 19th August, 1998; (iv) We have not given due importance to the definition of the word "Manufacture" contained in Section 2(n) of the Act; and (v) We have also not considered the two documents filed as Annexures -10 and 11 to the writ petition.