Case: M/S Dugar Tea Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs. State Of Assam

packing tea and blending as well as packing of tea was not a manufacturing activity and therefore, also the appellant was not entitled to the benefit claimed by it.13. The learned counsel thereafter submitted that according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, Certificate of Authorisation should have been procured by the appellant for availing the benefit under the Act. Such a Certificate of Authorisation had never been issued to the appellant-Company and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption in respect of payment of sales tax claimed by it.14. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel submitted that the appeals deserved to be dismissed.15. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have considered the relevant legal provisions and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel.16. Upon perusal of the record and the law laid down by this Court in the light of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Courts below cannot be said to be incorrect.17. Rule 2(f) of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Rules, 1986 reads as under:-“2(f) ‘Raw material’ means any material or commodity capable of being used for manufacture of any other product specified in any authorisation certificate as intended by the holder for use by him as raw material in the manufacture of goods in the State for sale by him but shall not include the following commodities namely :(a) tea, (b) coal, (c) liquefied petroleum gas, (d) plywood, (e) petrol, diesel oil and lubricants.”In view of the aforestated Rule, it is crystal clear that tea is not to be included in “raw material” and therefore, no exemption could have been claimed by the Appellant Company in respect of ‘tea’ as a raw material for purchase as well as sale of tea. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant had earlier preferred Civil Rule No.4162 of 1991 before the High Court challenging validity of the aforestated Rule. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the petition, vide order dated 17th August, 1988 held that Rule 2(f) of the 1988 Rules was legal and valid and the plea of promissory estoppel raised by the appellant was also not accepted. Against the said judgment, no appeal was filed by the appellant and therefore, the said issue had attained finality.18. Another important thing is with regard to certificate of authorisation.19. It is an admitted fact that so as to avail the benefit as per Section 4 of the Act, certificate of authorisation is a must. The said Section reads as under:“4. Certificate of authorisation –(1) A person undertaking to manufacture in the State such goods, as may be prescribed, may make an application in the prescribed form to the prescribed authority and within the prescribed time for a certificate of authorisation for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 3.(2) If the authority to whom an application is made under sub-section (1) is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under it shall grant to the applicant a certificate of authorisation in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods for purposes of sub-section (1) of section 3 and the period for which it shall remain valid.(3) A certificate of authorisation granted under this section shall remain valid for a period of five years from the date of completion of effective steps for setting up the industrial unit in respect of which the certificate is granted.(4) No certificate of authorisation shall be granted under sub-section (2) except in respect of such raw materials as may be prescribed.(5) A certificate of authorisation granted under this section may:-(a) be amended by the authority granting it if he is satisfied either on the application of the holder or, where no such application has been made, after due notice to the holder, that by reason of the holder having changed the name, place or nature of his business or the class or classes of goods bought, sold or manufactured by him or for any other reason the certificate of authorisation granted to him required to be amended; or(b) be cancelled by the authority granting it, where he is satisfied after due notice to the holder that the holder has ceased to carry on business or for any other sufficient reason.”20. As stated hereinabove, it is an admitted fact that no certificate of authorisation, as provided under the Act, had ever been granted to the appellant-Company and therefore, in our opinion, the courts below were absolutely right to the effect that the appellant was not entitled to any sales tax exemption.21. So far as the averments with regard to estoppel are concerned, it is a settled legal position that there cannot be any estoppel against law. When there is a legal provision to the effect that when tea is used as raw material, no tax exemption would be available under the provisions of the Act, none can claim tax exemption in respect of sales tax payable on purchase or sale of tea. It is true that an eligibility certificate had been issued to the appellant-Company in pursuance of the 1986 Incentive Scheme of Government of Assam but when the said Scheme was given a statutory form under the Act, ‘tea’ had been excluded from the definition of raw material and therefore, on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued under the 1986 Incentive Scheme of Government of Assam, the appellant cannot claim any benefit.22. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent-Authorities have rightly held that the appellant was not in the business of ‘manufacturing’ tea but was merely blending and packing tea, which does not amount to ‘manufacturing’ of tea. We find substance in the said stand taken by the respondent-Authorities as the said view has been fortified by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Tara Agencies 2007 (6) SCC 429.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In view of the aforestated Rule, it is crystal clear that tea is not to be included innd therefore, no exemption could have been claimed by the Appellant Company in respect ofas a raw material for purchase as well as sale of tea. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant had earlier preferred Civil Rule No.4162 of 1991 before the High Court challenging validity of the aforestated Rule. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the petition, vide order dated 17th August, 1988 held that Rule 2(f) of the 1988 Rules was legal and valid and the plea of promissory estoppel raised by the appellant was also not accepted. Against the said judgment, no appeal was filed by the appellantand therefore, thesaid issue had attained finality.18. Another important thing is with regard to certificate of authorisation.19. It is an admitted fact that so as to avail the benefit as per Section 4 of the Act, certificate of authorisation is a must. The said Section reads asCertificate of authorisation –(1) A person undertaking to manufacture in the State such goods, as may be prescribed, may make an application in the prescribed form to the prescribed authority and within the prescribed time for a certificate of authorisation for the purposes of(1) of section 3.(2) If the authority to whom an application is made under(1) is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under it shall grant to the applicant a certificate of authorisation in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods for purposes of(1) of section 3 and the period for which it shall remain valid.(3) A certificate of authorisation granted under this section shall remain valid for a period of five years from the date of completion of effective steps for setting up the industrial unit in respect of which the certificate is granted.(4) No certificate of authorisation shall be granted under(2) except in respect of such raw materials as may be prescribed.(5) A certificate of authorisation granted under this sectionbe amended by the authority granting it if he is satisfied either on the application of the holder or, where no such application has been made, after due notice to the holder, that by reason of the holder having changed the name, place or nature of his business or the class or classes of goods bought, sold or manufactured by him or for any other reason the certificate of authorisation granted to him required to be amended; or(b) be cancelled by the authority granting it, where he is satisfied after due notice to the holder that the holder has ceased to carry on business or for any other sufficient reason.As stated hereinabove, it is an admitted fact that no certificate of authorisation, as provided under the Act, had ever been granted to theand therefore, in our opinion, the courts below were absolutely right to the effect that the appellant was not entitled to any sales tax exemption.21. So far as the averments with regard to estoppel are concerned, it is a settled legal position that there cannot be any estoppel against law. When there is a legal provision to the effect that when tea is used as raw material, no tax exemption would be available under the provisions of the Act, none can claim tax exemption in respect of sales tax payable on purchase or sale of tea. It is true that an eligibility certificate had been issued to thein pursuance of the 1986 Incentive Scheme of Government of Assam but when the said Scheme was given a statutory form under the Act,had been excluded from the definition of raw material and therefore, on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued under the 1986 Incentive Scheme of Government of Assam, the appellant cannot claim any benefit.22. It is also pertinent to note that thehave rightly held that the appellant was not in the business oftea but was merely blending and packing tea, which does not amount toof tea. We find substance in the said stand taken by theas the said view has been fortified by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Tara Agencies 2007 (6) SCC 429.