Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs CCT

Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Anr. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. M/s. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., Kottayam, purchased printing

ink for Rs. 1,00,03,050/- from M/s. Quality Ink Manufacturing,

Kottayam during the year 2001-2002. The ink so purchased was

to be used for printing newspapers by the said firm. This firm filed

Form No. 18 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for

short `the Act') for purchase of raw material for use in the

manufacture of `finished goods' i.e. newspaper and in terms of

Section 5 (3) of the Act they were liable to pay only concessional

tax at the rate of 3% for that period.

1

2. There was no dispute at any point of time that this concern was

engaged in printing of newspapers. However, the Department felt

that no manufacturing was involved in the process of printing of

newspapers and, as such, purchase of printing ink effected by

issuing Form No. 18 was not the correct statement in terms of the

statutory provisions of the Act. The case of the Department was

that the declarations thus furnished by the firm were not accurate,

according to law and there was misuse of statutory forms. This

resulted in issuance of a notice for imposition of penalty under

Section 45 (A) of the Act providing an opportunity to the firm to

respond thereto and file its objections, if any. It was proposed to

impose a penalty of Rs. 18,19,208/- on the said assessee, being

double the amount of tax due on the purchase turnover.

3. The reply to the notice was filed by the assessee firm admitting

that printing ink was purchased and that sub-section 3 of Section 5

does not stipulate that there should be manufacture of taxable

goods. It was specifically pleaded that the provisions of Section 5

(3) of the Act were amended by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect

from 01.04.2000 deleting the provision that manufacture items

shall be taxable. The impact of the amendment was such that,

2 according to the assessee firm, the issuance of notice was not

proper. It was also stated that amended section does not

contemplate any `manufacturing' activity and the word used was

`production' and there is a clear distinction between the two. The

assessee relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam

[(2001) 7 SCC 525 : (2002) 125 Sales Tax Cases 101 (SC)]

wherein it was held that `manufacture' means use of raw materials

for production of goods commercially different from raw materials

used. When the end product is a commercially different product, it

amounts to manufacturing.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, who had issued

the notice, came to the conclusion that the concession has been

extended to non-taxable goods also and formed an opinion that

the concession is applicable only to `goods' and newspaper was

not a `goods' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. While

referring to another judgment of this Court in Collector of Central

Excise v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [(1989) 4 SCC 566 : (1990) 77

Sales Tax Cases 282], the said Assistant Commissioner

concluded that newspaper was not a `goods' and, therefore, the

3 declaration was not appropriate and imposed a penalty of Rs.

14,66,256 for the year 2000-2001.

5. The assessee firm did not take recourse to the statutory remedies

available under the Act but questioned the very correctness and

legality of the issuance of the notice as well as the order passed

by the Assistant Commissioner before the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

6. This writ petition was contested by the Department which filed

detailed counter affidavit. It was specifically pleaded by the

Department that for availability of statutory alternative remedy as

well as for other reasons and facts stated in the reply, the writ

petition itself was not maintainable. The Division Bench of the

High Court while considering this primary objection raised by the

Department before the High Court, came to the conclusion that as

the facts were not in dispute and questions raised were purely

legal and are to be tested in view of the judgment of this Court in

the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer [(1994) 93 Sales Tax Cases 95 : (1994) 2 SCC 434],

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 4 1] as well as the judgment in the case of State of H.P. & Ors. v.

Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 499 : (2005) 142

Sales Tax Cases 1], the writ petition was maintainable. However,

while laying emphasis that the newspaper would not fall within the

expression `goods' under sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the Act, the

High Court held that the notice issued was proper as Form No. 18

which gives benefit of concessional rate of tax was factually not

correct. While dismissing the writ petition, however, the Bench

issued a direction to the assessing authority to examine whether

the imposition of penalty at double the rate is justified in the facts

and circumstances of the case, within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. It is this judgment

of the High Court which has been assailed in the present appeal

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant with some

vehemence argued that the High Court had specifically noticed the

contention of the assessee firm that the initiation of the

proceedings is based on a provision which had been repealed,

non-existent and inapplicable, as such, the entire proceedings and

imposition of penalty was unjustified, still the High Court did not

5 deal with this contention at all. It was a pure question of law and

would even otherwise have effect on the merits of the case. Non-

consideration of the contention and non-recording of any reasons

in that regard on merit, would entirely vitiate the order. It is further

argued that even the alternative submission as to whether the

newspaper was covered under the definition of `goods' and as to

what is the effect of amendment of the provisions of Section 5(3)

and particularly, the substitution of the word `manufacture' by the

word `production' have not been correctly examined. The

discussion of the High Court on the matter in issue had primarily

proceeded with reference to the un-amended provisions and on an

erroneous impression of law that despite amendment, the `goods'

will still not include `newspapers'.

8. On the contra, Mr. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for

the Department fairly stated that the amended provisions and their

effect have not been considered by the High Court in its judgment

under appeal. Even, according to him, the discussion on

amendments with particular reference to the word `production'

could have some impact on the alternative submission made by

the assessee-respondent. However, he submitted that the matter

6 at best can be remanded to the High Court and the notice cannot

be quashed as the contentions will still have to be examined by the

competent authority/Courts.

9. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties,

we are of the considered view that the order under challenge

requires interference by this Court. There is no dispute to the fact

that the material amendments were carried out in the provisions of

Section 5(3) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2002. The existing

1st proviso to Section 5(3)(i) was deleted as well as the expression

`or uses the same in the manufacture of any goods which are not

liable to tax in this Act' in Section 5(3)(i) was also deleted. Despite

these amendments, as it appears from the record before the

Court, format of Form No. 18 has not been amended

consequently. However, the fact of the matter remains that the

High Court has not dwelt upon these legal issues which are the

core issues involved in the present case. In our view, the

discussion on the first issue would certainly have some bearing on

the alternative argument raised on behalf of the appellant before

us. Thus, it may not be possible for this Court to sustain the

finding recorded by the High Court in that regard. Of course, we

7 are not ruling out all the possibilities of the High Court arriving at

the same conclusion if it is of that view after examining the

amendments as well as the submissions made on behalf of the

appellant with regard to its alternative submissions. In light of this

discussion, we pass the following order :

(a) The impugned order dated 2nd August, 2006 passed by

the High Court is hereby set aside.

(b) The matter is remanded to the High Court for

consideration afresh in accordance with law on both the

aforesaid submissions while leaving all the contentions of

the assessee and the Department open for the year 2000-

2001, in relation to imposition of penalty under Section 45

(A) of the Act.

(c) The legality and validity or otherwise of the notice dated

16.01.2006 and 17.01.2006 shall be subject to the final

decision of the High Court.

10. The appeal is accordingly disposed off without any order as to the

costs.

................................J. [ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]

8 ..............................J. [ SWATANTER KUMAR ] New Delhi July 8, 2010.

9