COMMR.COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. Vs M/S OSWAL GREENTECH LIMITED
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: C.A. No.-010430-010430 / 2016
Diary number: 16945 / 2012
Advocates: RAVI PRAKASH MEHROTRA Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10430 OF 2016 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28962 of 2013)
Commissioner of Commercial Tax,U.P. …Appellant
Versus
M/s Oswal Greentech Limited …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The respondent, a dealer registered under Section 8-A of
the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, “the Act”), is a holder
of a recognition certificate as per provisions contained in
Section 4-B of the Act. The respondent used to make
purchases of raw material at the concessional rate of tax
Page 2
2
against Form III-B obtained by it from the office of the Trade
Tax Officer. As per conditions prescribed under Section 4-B(2)
of the Act, the notified goods manufactured out of the raw
material produced at the concessional rate of tax against Form
III-B is required to be sold by such manufacturer in the State
or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or in the
course of export out of India. It is also provided in the said
Section that if a recognition certificate holder sells goods
manufactured by it out of the raw material purchased at the
concessional rate of tax against Form III-B in a manner
otherwise than prescribed under Section 4-B(2), the said
dealer shall be liable to penal action equal to three times of the
tax, thus saved by the said dealer on purchase made against
Form III-B.
3. At the time of scrutiny, the assessing authority noticed
that the respondent had made purchases of natural gas
against Form III-B at the concessional rate of tax, and after
manufacture of the notified goods, that is, fertilizers, out of the
said purchases of natural gas purchased against Form III-B,
Page 3
3
some of the finished goods were transferred outside the State
of Uttar Pradesh. The Revenue issued show cause notice to
the respondent for the assessment year 2005-06 and after
considering the explanation offered, imposed penalty of
Rs.10,46.98,335/- vide order dated 28.03.2009. Being
aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 9
of the Act before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-1,
Commercial Tax, Bareilly being Appeal No. 798 of 2009, and
the appellate authority vide its order dated 12.11.2009
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the assessing
authority dated 28.03.2009 passed under Section 3-B of the
Act.
4. The dismissal of appeal constrained the respondent to file
a second appeal (Appeal No. 237 of 2009) before the Tribunal,
Trade Tax, U.P. (for short, “tribunal”). Since there was
difference of opinion in the Division Bench of the tribunal, the
case was referred to the Chairman of the tribunal who
nominated another Judicial Member for his opinion. The
learned Judicial Member gave his opinion in favour of the
Page 4
4
respondent. On the basis of the opinion expressed by the
nominated Judicial Member, the appeal stood allowed as a
consequence of which the order imposing penalty was
annulled.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the Revenue
filed Trade Tax Revision No. 579 of 2011 under Section 11 of
the Act before the High Court. The question of law that arose
for consideration before the High Court was as follows:-
“Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal were legally justified in granting the exemption on purchase of raw material against Form III-B whereas the dealer has made a stock transfer of finished goods which is not permissible under law?”
6. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the
tribunal had relied on a Division Bench decision of the High
Court in Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. v. State of U.P.
& Ors.1 and on that basis had come to the conclusion that the
assessee had purchased the material and used it in
manufacture and there was no violation of Section 3-B of the
1 (2005 ) 139 STC 380 (All)
Page 5
5
Act and accordingly concurred with the view of the tribunal as
a result of which the revision stood dismissed.
7. We have heard Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal and Mr. Rajeev
Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Punit Dutt
Tyagi for the respondent.
8. It is profitable to refer to the findings recorded by the
assessing officer. It has been held by him that under Section
3-B and 4-B(2) of the Act, the finished product manufactured
from the raw material purchased at a concessional rate can
only be sold in U.P. or in the course of inter-State trade and
commerce or can be exported out of country, but stock
transfer is not permissible. According to the assessing officer,
the trader had purchased natural gas at a concessional rate
against Form III-B i.e. 20% minus 15% = 5%, availing the
benefit at the rate of 15% and paying tax at the rate of 5%.
The production of urea has been done by using the natural
gas obtained at a concessional rate and the manufactured
product, that is, urea has been sent by way of stock transfer
outside the State in clear violation of Section 3-B and 4-B(2) of
Page 6
6
the Act. It has been further opined by him that the assessee
had acted contrary to the provision of law by purchasing raw
material at a concessional rate and thereafter sending the
finished goods as stock transfer outside the State which does
not come under the term ‘sale’ and no revenue is generated by
the State. Proceeding further, the assessing officer has held
thus:-
“The trader without acting under the provisions of the Section 3B and 4B(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, had caused loss of revenue to the State. The State had lost revenue at the rate of 15% on the purchase of raw material used in the produced goods sent as stock transfer, which could have received had these were not purchased against Form 3B. Because the tax has been paid at the rate of 5% against form 3B. Had the trader not declared false declaration against Form 3B, and had acted as per the provision of Section 4B(2), then the State Government could have got 20% as Tax and 1% as development tax totaling 21%. The local purchase of natural gas could have been made without form 3B. But the trader had not acted under the provisions of Section 3B. The trader had not also acted u/s 4B (2) which he had declared to act when taking the forms 3B. Hence, the raw material purchased at a concessional rate were utilized in the manufacturing of the notified finished product (Urea), but instead of making any sale (within and outside the State) and without exporting those outside the country, had made stock transfers, thereby had violated Section 4B(2) of the Act. By
Page 7
7
making false declaration u/s 3B of the Act, the trader had only deposited tax on the purchase of raw material (Natural Gas) at the rate of 5% only and availed the benefit of 15%. On the other hand without taking any action u/s 4B (2) of the Act, had made stock transfer outside the State, as a result of which had saved tax @ 7.5% apart from the development tax on Urea. As such the trader was able to evade tax @ 22.5% in an illegal manner and thereby had caused double loss of revenue to the State.”
9. The appellate authority, as the order would reflect, has
expressed the view that the assessee, after availing the benefit
at the concessional rate, has violated the provisions contained
in Section 4B(2) of the Act and has been making stock
transfers quite often. The appellate authority has opined that
the principle stated in the authorities in Camphor and Allied
Products Ltd. (supra), Bareilly v. State of U.P.2, CTT v.
Manoharlal Heeralal Pvt. Ltd.3 are different and not
applicable to the facts of the case.
10. The opinion of the tribunal, as expressed by the judicial
member, which is the final view of the tribunal, is that the
trader was authorized to purchase the natural gas for the
2 2004 UPTC 331 3 2006 NTN, Vol. 29 page 223
Page 8
8
manufacture of urea and it is undisputed that it had
manufactured urea by utilizing the natural gas purchased
against the issue of Form III-B. He has proceeded to state that
no action can be taken under Section 3-B on the ground that
the products utilizing the natural gas purchased against the
issue of Form III-B were sent through stock transfer without
selling those directly, because Section 4-B of the Act cannot be
extended to determine the responsibility under Section 3-B.
The judicial member has arrived at the said conclusion on the
foundation that Section 4-B has nothing to do with the fact
that how the notified goods are to be disposed of because the
provision of Section 3-B is not applicable in case the raw
material is used for production of the notified goods mentioned
in the recognition certificate. The learned member has
expressed the view that the decisions in Camphor and Allied
Products Ltd. (supra) and Bareilly (supra) are fully
applicable and the case of the assessee is covered by the
principles stated therein. He also took note of the fact that the
decisions in Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. (supra),
Page 9
9
Bareilly (supra) and Manoharlal Heeralal (supra) have not
been assailed before the Supreme Court and, therefore, they
are binding precedents in the field. Eventually, the learned
member came to hold thus:-
“In the present case it is established that the trader had utilized natural gas purchased against the Form 3B in the production of the ‘Urea’. As such, in my opinion, proceeding u/s 3B should not have been initiated against the trader. The order which has been passed by the assessing officer u/s 3B of the Act and which has been confirmed by the first appellate court, are not justified.”
11. To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective and
to scrutinize the analysis of the departmental authorities on
one hand and the tribunal and the High Court on the other, it
is necessary to scan the statutory scheme and its real import.
Section 3-B of the Act reads as follows:-
"Section 3-B. Liability on issuing false certificate, etc.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act, and without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15-A, a person, who issues a false or wrong certificate or declaration, prescribed under any provision of this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, to another person by reason of which a tax leviable under this Act on the transaction of purchase or sale made with or by such other person ceases to be leviable or
Page 10
10
becomes leviable at a concessional rate, shall be liable to pay on such transaction an amount which would have been payable as tax on such transaction had such certificate or declaration not been issued :
Provided that before taking any action under this section, the person concerned shall be given an opportunity of being heard.
Explanation.-Where a person issuing a certificate or declaration discloses therein his intention to use the goods purchased by him for such purpose as will make the tax not leviable or leviable at a concessional rate but uses the same for a purpose other than such purpose, the certificate or declaration shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be wrong."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. Section 4-B(2) and 4-B(6) of the Act which are relevant to
the controversy at hand and further on which the Revenue has
laid immense emphasis are extracted hereunder:-
“(2) Where a dealer requires any goods, referred to in sub-section (1) for use in the manufacture by him, in the State of any notified goods, or in the packing of such notified goods manufactured or processed by him, and such notified goods are intended to be sold by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, he may apply to the assessing authority in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed, for the grant of a recognition certificate in respect thereof, and if the applicant satisfies such requirements
Page 11
11
including requirement of depositing late fee and conditions as may be prescribed, the assessing authority shall grant to him in respect of such goods a recognition certificate in such form and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section,-(a) goods required for use in the manufacture shall mean raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, consumable stores, spare parts, accessories, components, sub-assemblies, fuels or lubricants ; and
(b) ‘notified goods’ means such goods as may, from time to time, be notified by the State Government in that behalf.
xxxx xxxxx
(6) Where a dealer in whose favour a recognition certificate has been granted under sub-section (2) has purchased any goods after payment of tax at concessional rate under this section, or as the case may be, without payment of tax and the goods manufactured out of such raw materials or processing materials or manufactured goods after being packed with such packing material are sold or disposed of otherwise than by way of sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, such dealer shall be liable to pay an amount equal to the difference between the amount of tax on the sale or purchase of such goods payable under this section and the amount of tax calculated at the rate of four per cent, on the sale or purchase of such goods."
Page 12
12
13. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant that recognition certificate is granted where a dealer
uses the goods (raw material) in the manufacture of notified
goods by him in the State or in the course of inter-State trade
and commerce or in the course of export outside India and the
fulfillment of aforesaid two conditions is a pre-requisite for
claiming exemption, but in the case at hand, the assessee
though has purchased the goods at concessional rate by
furnishing Form III-B under Rule 25-B(1) has engaged itself in
stock transfer and, therefore, the penal provisions gets fully
attracted. Relying on sub-section (6) of Section 4-B, it is urged
by him as no differential tax has been paid by the assessee,
certificate in Form III-B continues to be a false or a wrong
certificate as regards the purchase of natural gas and used in
the manufacture of urea, hence the penalty has been correctly
levied. It is his further submission that decision in Camphor
and Allied Products Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts
of the present case, for in the said case the camphor
manufactured by the assessee was transferred by way of stock
Page 13
13
transfer outside the State of U.P. on which the differential tax
was paid in accordance with Section 4-B(6) of the Act, but in
the present case, no differential tax has been paid by the
respondent, and such violation as a natural corollary leads to
the inevitable conclusion that the certificate in Form III-B
continues to be a false or wrong certificate. Lastly, it is
contended by him that the Division Bench of the High Court
has not correctly laid down the law in Camphor and Allied
Products Ltd. (supra) inasmuch as it has confined its
consideration to the first part of condition enshrined under
Section 4-B(2) of the Act, whether the raw material has been
used in the manufacture or not, but has not considered the
second part, that is, the goods had been sold intra-State or
inter-State or exported out of India.
14. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the assessee, per contra,
would contend that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of fertilizer and as per the recognition
certificate, it is entitled to procure natural gas at a
concessional rate and the respondent has procured natural
Page 14
14
gas from two sources (1) from GAIL at a concessional rate
against Form III-B and (2) from outside the State from
BPCL/GAIL at normal tax. Learned counsel would submit
that the respondent has disposed of urea by local sale and has
also transferred the stock to various States which have been
pursuant to and in compliance of Movement Orders issued by
the Government of India from time to time. He has referred to
directions issued by the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
under the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973. It is
urged by him that as per the Fertilizer (Movement Control)
Order, 1973 unless the Government of India authorizes a
manufacturer to make stock transfer of a particular quantity
of urea in a particular month, no urea can be transferred/sold
from one State to another. Learned counsel would put forth
that the State never disputed the stock transfers made under
Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973. Learned counsel
would further propone that show cause notice was issued
under Section 3-B for alleged violation of Form III-B and it
cannot change the foundation to raise a fresh plea under
Page 15
15
Section 4-B(6) of the Act. It is further urged by Mr. Tyagi that
the pronouncement in Camphor and Allied Products Ltd.
(supra) is absolutely correct and, in fact, it has been holding
the field for considerable length of time as far as the State of
U.P. is concerned. To substantiate the contentions he has
raised, he has placed reliance on CCE v. Gas Authority of
India Ltd.4 and SACI Allied Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut5.
Though Mr. Tyagi has contended with regard to limitation in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the bar on the part of
revenue to accept the judgment on the same question in the
case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case
of another assessee and in support of the same has cited
certain authorities, we need not enter into the said arena, for
what we are going to hold.
15. In Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. (supra) the High
Court took note of the fact that the RFO and furnace oil was
purchased against Form III-B and the same was used in the
manufacture of camphor and other goods mentioned in the
4 2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC) 5 2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC)
Page 16
16
recognition certificate granted under Section 4-B of the Act. It
took note of the two earlier decisions in Commissioner of
Trade Tax v. Spox India and Allied Industries6 and Arora
Steel Udyog (P) Ltd. v Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.7
and quoted a passage from the latter authority, which is to the
following effect:-
"It is well-settled that proceedings under Section 3-B shall be initiated only when the assessee issues a false or wrong certificate or declaration provided under any of the provisions under the Act or Rules framed thereunder. This view has been constantly taken by this Court in Sahni Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1994 UPTC 70, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. B.K. & Co. Engineering Works, Agra 1995 UPTC 502 and S.G. Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1998] 108 STC 328; 1997 UPTC 616 of this Court. Therefore, unless it was shown that the form III-B issued by the revisionist were false or wrong, or the declarations made therein was false or wrong, no proceedings under Section 3-B of the Act could have been initiated. It is also not the case of the department that the assessee did not use the goods purchased by him for the purpose for which exemption certificate was granted to him. Therefore, the assessee cannot be deemed to have issued a wrong certificate."
6 1998 UPTC 631 7 1999 UPTC 277
Page 17
17
It also took note of the decision relied upon by the
Revenue in Puri Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax8,
which took a different view and thereafter came to hold as
follows:-
“28. The petitioner purchased RFO/furnace oil against form III-B for manufacture of its final product, namely, camphor and other allied products. Section 3-B clearly shows that it is the user of the goods which is relevant for the purpose for which form III-B was given and not how the finished product or manufactured goods are sold. Admittedly form III-B was issued for use in manufacture of camphor and other allied products and RFO/furnace oil for which the recognition certificate was granted. Hence in our opinion the petitioner cannot be deemed to have issued any wrong or false certificate and tax cannot be legally charged under Section 3-B of the Act.
xxxxx xxxxx
31. In the present case RFO and furnace oil have admittedly been used in the manufacture of camphor and allied products for which recognition certificate was granted. Hence it cannot be deemed that the petitioner has issued any wrong or false certificate. It is evident from the facts that the petitioner has not issued any wrong or false certificate or declaration in form III-B inasmuch as both RFO and furnace oil have been used for the same purpose, namely, in the process of
8 1988 UPTC 1197
Page 18
18
manufacture of goods, i.e., camphor, and another allied products.”
16. We have already analysed the statutory scheme and what
has been dwelt with by the High Court in Camphor and
Allied Products Ltd. (supra) and what has been pressed into
service by Mr. Tyagi. Presently, text and context in detail.
Section 4-B(2) is applicable to the dealer who manufactures
notified goods in the State or engaged in packaging of such
notified goods manufactured or processed by him. The said
dealer can apply to the assessing authority in such form,
manner and within the time prescribed for grant of the
recognition certificate. The assessing authority can grant the
recognition certificate to the dealer in respect of goods used in
the manufacture of the notified goods or packing of the
notified Goods. Explanation to the sub-section defines the
word “Goods” which means raw materials, processing
material, machinery, spare parts and also fuels. The
expression “Notified Goods” means such goods as notified by
the State government from time to time.
Page 19
19
17. Sub-section (2) to Section 4-B also requires that the
notified goods should be “intended” to be sold by the dealer
within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce or in the course of exports out of India. The
expression “intended” is significant and important. It refers to
the intention of the dealer after the goods are manufactured
and packed. The expression “in the course inter-State trade or
commerce” is quite broad and wide. An issue may arise as to
whether the stock transfer outside the State in terms of
directions issued by the Central Government can be
considered as sale or transaction in the course of inter-State
trade or commerce. In the case at hand, we would not decide
the said issue or question, for it was not raised or argued
before the authorities and can be examined in an appropriate
case when raised and considered. Be it noted, sub-section (6)
is a specific provision which deals with the case of the dealer
who has been issued the recognition certificate and has
purchased goods without payment of tax or at concessional
rates, but has sold the manufactured goods or packaged goods
Page 20
20
otherwise than by way of sale in the State, or in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce or export out of India. The
provision specifically deals with cases where the dealer
manufactures or packs the notified goods and has taken
benefit of lower/concessional or nil rate of tax on the raw
material but is unable to fulfill the intendment, i.e., he has not
been able to sell the notified goods by way of sale within the
State or in course of inter-State state or commerce or by way
of export. In such cases, the dealer is liable to pay the amount
of difference on the amount of sale or purchase of such goods
on which concession or nil rate of tax was paid on account of
issue of the requirement certificate and the amount of tax
calculated @ 4%. The sub-section is a particular and a
specific section which deals with and specifies the
consequences when the dealer is unable to meet and comply
with intendment. The sub-section (6) would, thus, be
applicable.
18. Section 3-B undoubtedly commences with a
non-obstante clause, but the provision has to be read
Page 21
21
harmoniously with sub-section (6) to Section 4-B. Any other
interpretation would make sub-section (6) a dead letter, for if
we accept the plea of the Revenue whenever there is violation
or failure to abide with the “intendment”, Section 3-B would be
invoked and applied, not sub-section(6) to Section 4-B. Section
3-B would apply when a false and wrong certificate or
declaration is made. Sub-section (6) on the other hand, deals
with cases where the dealer is unable to comply with the
intendment, i.e., for some reason he is unable to sell the goods
within the State, export them or sell them in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce. Intendment of the said nature
has not been treated as false or wrong declaration as
consequences have been prescribed in sub-section (6). It is
essential to be stated that consistency and certainty in tax
matters is necessary. In cases relating to “Indirect Taxation”,
this principle is even more important. Clarity in this regard is
a necessity and the interpretative vision should be same.
19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find the view
expressed by the tribunal which has been concurred by the
Page 22
22
High Court is absolutely defensible and does not warrant any
interference. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
…….……….............J. (DIPAK MISRA)
….……………………..J. (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
New Delhi, October 28, 2016