State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Rajasthan Ice And Cold Storage And Ors.

2. It is stated that the respondent-firm, Rajasthan Ice and Cold Storage, Jodhpur, was, inter alia, carrying on the business of cold storage and in the writ petition filed before the High Court, it was contended that the goods storage was the "process" of refrigeration and, therefore, it was an industry entitled to be charged electricity duty at a reduced rate as per the notification dated November 1, 1965. That petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal.

3. The issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this court rendered in Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. CIT . In that case, the court considered the question--whether the respondent-company can be held to be an industrial company for the purpose of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973. After considering the various decisions and the definition of "industrial company" as defined under Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, the court observed that the company should be, inter alia, engaged in process of goods. The court thereafter held that in a cold storage, vegetables, fruits and several other articles which require preservation by refrigeration are stored. As a result of long storage, scientific examination may indicate loss of moisture content, that is not sufficient for holding that the stored articles have undergone a "process" and hence not an industrial company.

4. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Associated Stone Industries , dealing with the notifications in question, this court held that the word "manufacture" used in the notifications should be understood in its commercial sense in the absence of definition in the statute itself. In that case, the question involved was energy consumed for pumping out water from the mines and the court held that it cannot be held to be manufacturing activity.

5. Considering the aforesaid judgments rendered by this court, in our view, the judgment rendered by the High Court holding that the respondent is an industry engaged in the processing of goods within the meaning of the notification dated November 1, 1965, requires to be set aside.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.