1 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.69/2003 (The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Anr. v. Mehta Udyog) Date of Order: : 22-01-2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.Sangeet Lodha, for Petitioners. Mr.Dinesh Mehta, for Respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the issue involved in the present revision petition is as to whether the job work production is to be included in the calculation capacity utilisation of 85% of installed capacity and for that, the Tax Board earlier took the view that the job work production is required to be included in the calculation capacity utilisation of the Industrial Unit. The said view was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 18th January, 2000, by rejecting the revenue's revision petition, in the case of of M/s. Vishnu Metals, Jodhpur. The judgment of this Court delivered in the above revision petition, was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jodhpur v. Vishnu Metals, reported in (2006) 148 STC 634 (SC), held that the production includes manufacture of own goods as well as goods manufactured on job-work for others. Further, the Hon'ble Apex 2 Court held that the goods manufactured for others must be goods of same nature as own goods for sale. In view of the said decision, the State Level Screening Committee is required to decide the matter of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tax Board allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the State Level Screening Committee to give benefit to the appellant under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987, on the basis of utilisation of 85% of its installed capacity by including job work. The above order is required to be modified, because of the reason that in view of the binding decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, instead of straightaway giving benefit to the assessee as given by the Tax Board, the assessee can be given benefit only on fulfilment of the other conditions, i.e., the goods manufactured by the assessee on job work basis must be goods of same nature as of assessee's own goods for sale. Therefore, the revision petition of the petitioners is partly allowed and the SLSC is directed to decide the case of the assessee in the light of the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Taxes Officer, Jodhpur v. Vishnu Mentals (2006) 148 STC 634 (SC) and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the Scheme of 1987 on the condition 3 that the goods manufactured on job-work is of same nature as of the assessee's own manufactured goods for sale. The State Level Screening Committee would decide the matter of the assessee after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties on this question within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order which may be submitted by the petitioners before the State Level Screening Committee. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Scd.