2000 JTR(SC) 257
2000 AIR(SCW) 4905 ; 2000 4 JT 401 ; 2001 1 KLT(SN) 60 ; 2000 9 SCC 286 ; 2001 121 STC 274 ; 2000 5 Supreme 5
2000(5) Supreme 5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Dy. Commnr. (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) -Appellant
versus
M/s. M.R.F. Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2769-2778 of 1998
Decided on 2-2-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Compounded rubber manufactured out of rubber is a finished rubber product and as such entitled to reduced rate of tax on purchase of rubber for manufacture within State of Kerala under Notification No. 641/81 issued under Section 10 of Kerala GST Act.
Act Referred :KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT : S.10
(A) The provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, specifically Section 10, authorize the State to issue notifications that modify tax rates for specific transactions. In this case, the notification (SRO No. 641/81) issued under this provision reduced the tax rate on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers for use in producing finished rubber products. The dispute centered on whether compounded rubber qualifies as a "finished rubber product" within the meaning of this notification, which is a question of classification under the statutory scheme.
(B) The court emphasized the importance of giving due weight to established trade usage and understanding when interpreting statutory terms. It held that the uncontested evidence of industry professionals regarding the meaning of "finished rubber product" is determinative. The court also clarified that the intention of the buyer and seller, along with the nature of the articles, is relevant in characterizing goods as scrap for tax purposes.
Facts of the case:
The respondent manufacturer produced compounded rubber in Kerala using rubber purchased within the State. It claimed the benefit of a notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to avail a reduced tax rate, asserting that compounded rubber is a finished rubber product. The respondent also sold items classified as scrap, which the Tribunal determined based on their nature and the intention behind the sale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that compounded rubber is understood in the trade as a finished rubber product and that the Tribunal was justified in relying on trade evidence. It also held that the Tribunal correctly characterized the items sold as scrap based on the intention of the parties and the nature of the articles, and that no further tariff classification was required.
Issues:
1. Whether compounded rubber qualifies as a "finished rubber product" under the notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in classifying the items sold as scrap based on seller and buyer intention rather than specific tariff entries.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court's decision is grounded in the principle that trade usage and the intrinsic nature of goods are valid interpretative tools for statutory provisions. The classification of items as scrap was upheld based on the combined objective and subjective intent of the transaction, affirming the Tribunal's factual findings.
Result:
The civil appeals are dismissed, upholding the respondent's claim for the lower tax rate on compounded rubber and the characterization of the sold items as scrap.
(A) The provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, specifically Section 10, authorize the State to issue notifications that modify tax rates for specific transactions. In this case, the notification (SRO No. 641/81) issued under this provision reduced the tax rate on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers for use in producing finished rubber products. The dispute centered on whether compounded rubber qualifies as a "finished rubber product" within the meaning of this notification, which is a question of classification under the statutory scheme.
(B) The court emphasized the importance of giving due weight to established trade usage and understanding when interpreting statutory terms. It held that the uncontested evidence of industry professionals regarding the meaning of "finished rubber product" is determinative. The court also clarified that the intention of the buyer and seller, along with the nature of the articles, is relevant in characterizing goods as scrap for tax purposes.
Facts of the case:
The respondent manufacturer produced compounded rubber in Kerala using rubber purchased within the State. It claimed the benefit of a notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to avail a reduced tax rate, asserting that compounded rubber is a finished rubber product. The respondent also sold items classified as scrap, which the Tribunal determined based on their nature and the intention behind the sale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that compounded rubber is understood in the trade as a finished rubber product and that the Tribunal was justified in relying on trade evidence. It also held that the Tribunal correctly characterized the items sold as scrap based on the intention of the parties and the nature of the articles, and that no further tariff classification was required.
Issues:
1. Whether compounded rubber qualifies as a "finished rubber product" under the notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in classifying the items sold as scrap based on seller and buyer intention rather than specific tariff entries.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court's decision is grounded in the principle that trade usage and the intrinsic nature of goods are valid interpretative tools for statutory provisions. The classification of items as scrap was upheld based on the combined objective and subjective intent of the transaction, affirming the Tribunal's factual findings.
Result:
The civil appeals are dismissed, upholding the respondent's claim for the lower tax rate on compounded rubber and the characterization of the sold items as scrap.
ORDER
This is an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in tax revision cases filed at the instance of the Revenue. We are here concerned only with compounded rubber and with scrap. The assessment year concerned is Assessment Year 1986-87 and there is a provisional assessment for the period of April to December, 1990. The respondent manufactures compounded rubber in Kerala from rubber that is bought in Kerala. It claimed for the rubber that it bought the benefit of a notification (SRO No. 641/81) issued by the State in exercise of power conferred by Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Thereby the rate of tax was reduced from five per cent to three per cent "on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products". It was the case of the respondent that the compounded rubber that it manufactured was a finished rubber product and it produced before the assessing authority the affidavits of several individuals in the trade who affirmed that the compounded rubber was a finished rubber product as understood in the trade.
2. It is the contention of the Revenue that compounded rubber is not a finished rubber product and that the word "finished" must be understood as the last or concluding product in a chain. We are of the view that due weight must be given to the uncontested evidence of those in the trade who have stated that compounded rubber is understood in that trade as a finished rubber product and that, accordingly, the Tribunal and the High Court not be faulted for the view that they took in this behalf.
3. There is no dispute in regard to any future years and Mr. Salve, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the State has, fairly, not contended that the notification dated 2nd November, 1990 (SRO No. 1516/90) is either clarificatory or has retrospective effect.
4. The next item that we are concerned with is the scrap that was sold by the respondent. The scrap consisted of butyl rubber, banbury tailings, brass valves, empty drums and gunny bags. The Tribunal found, taking into consideration the nature of the articles and the manner in which they were sold, that they had been treated as condemned articles and not as articles which could be put to use again and, accordingly, should be treated as scrap. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that each of these items of butyl rubber, banbury tailings etc. should have been assessed under the particular tariff entry in which they fell and that the Tribunal was in error in taking into account the intention of the buyer and the seller in this behalf. It was not only the intention of the buyer and the seller that was taken into account but the nature of the articles that were being sold and, obviously, the Tribunal was satisfied that they were really no more than scrap and found that they should be taxed accordingly. The High Court was, therefore, right in not interfering.
5. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
6. No order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeals dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Dr. Commnr. (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. M/s. M.R.F. Ltd., 2000(5) Supreme 5
00023