- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited v. State Of Bihar And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 engaged in manufacturing commercial vehicles, chassis, excavators and related engineering products. In April 1982 the State Government, exercising powers under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, issued a notification fixing a concessional sales-tax rate of 1 % on “industrial raw material (inputs).”
To avail the concession on items such as tyres, tubes and batteries—purchased for incorporation into the finished vehicles—the appellant applied to the Deputy Commissioner. The officer initially stated that only “industrial raw material purchases” attracted 1 % tax, while “consumables, machinery, equipments etc.” would be taxed at 3 %. After further correspondence, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the concession on 26-11-1982, holding that items already in a finished state and merely fitted to the chassis were “fittings,” not “industrial raw materials.”
The appellant’s writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The High Court held that the words “industrial raw material (inputs)” could not be stretched to cover finished products, and that the Deputy Commissioner’s order suffered no infirmity. The present appeal is against that judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether finished goods such as tyres, tubes and batteries, when purchased for incorporation into commercial vehicles, qualify as “industrial raw material (inputs)” within the meaning of the State Government’s notification dated 12-04-1982 issued under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
- Consequently, whether the appellant is entitled to a concessional sales-tax rate of 1 % on such items.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Section 13(1)(b) is couched in wide terms, covering all goods “required … directly for use in the manufacture or processing” of saleable goods; the notification, being issued under that section, must be read harmoniously.
- Items like tyres, tubes and batteries are integral to the manufacture of a saleable vehicle; without them, a chassis cannot become a commercially viable product.
- The expression “industrial raw material (inputs)” should be interpreted in its ordinary and commercial sense, encompassing anything put into the manufacturing process, even if it is itself a finished product.
Respondent State’s Arguments
- The concessional rate is confined to “raw material” in the narrow, commonly understood sense; finished products purchased for mere fitting cannot be treated as raw material.
- Extending the concession to finished items would unduly broaden the notification beyond the State’s intent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO, (1965) 1 SCR 900 | The phrase “in the manufacture of goods” encompasses all processes integrally connected with converting raw materials into finished products. | Used to underline that any item integrally connected with producing the end-product falls within the statutory expression. |
| Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1965) 16 STC 259 | Goods “intended for use in manufacturing or processing” include vehicles used to transport mined ore to the factory. | Illustrated the breadth of expressions similar to Section 13(1)(b), reinforcing a liberal construction. |
| C.C.E. v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., (1989) 4 SCC 566 | An ingredient that either merges into or retains its identity in the end-product can still be “raw material.” | Supported the view that retention of identity (e.g., tyres remaining tyres) does not exclude an item from being raw material. |
| C.C.E. v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 128 | “Inputs” which are indispensable for marketing the finished product are exempt under a notification referring to that term. | Employed to show that “input” broadens the meaning of raw material to include essential finished components like name-plates, and by analogy, tyres and batteries. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting that Section 13(1)(b) itself is of “wide import,” as earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets similar phrases expansively. The notification, while limiting the concession to “industrial raw material (inputs),” was nevertheless issued under that very section and must be construed in harmony with it.
Examining the ordinary meaning of “raw material,” the Court held that the term is contextual and may vary with the end use; a finished product in one context can be raw material in another. Dictionaries define raw material as something used for manufacturing another commodity, and case law (Ballarpur Industries) confirms that both consumable and identity-retaining ingredients can qualify.
The addition of the parenthetical “(inputs)” further broadens the scope to anything “put in” during manufacture. Tyres, tubes and batteries, though independently marketable finished goods, are indispensably fitted to vehicles and remain integral to the finished commercial vehicle. Without them, the vehicle cannot be considered manufactured or saleable. Therefore, they constitute industrial raw materials for the appellant’s manufacturing process.
The respondent’s narrow construction—that only goods commonly understood as raw materials are eligible—was rejected as contrary to both statutory language and purposive interpretation. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court erred in denying the concession.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside. The appellant is entitled to the 1 % concessional sales-tax rate on tyres, tubes, batteries and similar items used in manufacturing its vehicles.
Implications: The decision grants immediate fiscal relief to the appellant and clarifies that, under the Bihar Finance Act notification of 12-04-1982, finished goods that are integrally incorporated into a new product qualify as “industrial raw material (inputs).” The ruling is confined to the statutory framework and does not create a new legal test but reinforces established principles of liberal interpretation in tax statutes.
R.M Sahai, J.— The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any raw material, including those which were otherwise finished products, used by the appellant in manufacture or processing of commercial vehicles, spare parts and other engineering products were ‘industrial raw material (inputs)’ within the meaning of the expression used in the notification issued by the State Government on 12-4-1982 in exercise of its power under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
2. The appellant, a registered dealer, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for purpose of manufacturing and processing its products, namely, motor vehicles, trucks and bus chassis, excavators and other engineering products, purchased commodities including such commodities as tyres, tubes, batteries and various other items which are used for producing the goods and making them saleable commodities. The appellant claimed that such goods being raw material having been required directly for use in the manufacturing of goods for sale in the State or in course of inter-State trade, the appellant was entitled to concessional rate of tax at 1% on such goods. It made an application on 27-4-1982 before the Deputy Commissioner for issuing certificate to enable the appellant to purchase the goods at concessional rate on which the order was passed to the following effect:
“Only industrial raw material purchases will be subject to tax at 1%. Consumables, machinery, equipments etc., will still be subject to 3%.”
Since, according to appellant, the order was vague, it filed another application on 16-8-1982 in which the details of the industrial raw material that the appellant intended to purchase were mentioned. To this the reply given by the Deputy Commissioner was that complaints were received that the appellant was paying tax of 1% only, on all kinds of purchases irrespective of whether materials were raw material or not. In pursuance of this letter, the appellant submitted its reply and on 26-11-1982, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant and observed as under:
“In my opinion the term industrial raw materials (input) means those inputs to the extent they are raw materials. To be very clear items of inputs which are in a finished state and are just to be fitted in the chassis without any further modifications etc., which are not undergoing any further process of manufacture are not industrial raw materials and are merely fittings. The purchases of such fittings to bring a chassis in saleable condition are not covered by the aforesaid Notification No. SO-604 dated 12-4-82.”
The appellant challenged this order by way of a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench and it was held that the claim of the appellant that the notification should be so read as to extend to all the goods required for use in manufacture or processing as contemplated by Section 13(1)(b) and not only to raw material as mentioned in the notification, was not correct as the section itself permitted the appellant, a manufacturer, to avail of the benefit subject to the conditions and restrictions to be prescribed. Since there was no unconditional right to pay concessional rate of tax and it depended on satisfying the conditions mentioned in the notification, the appellant could not claim that the notification suffered from any infirmity or that the appellant was not liable to be subjected to tax on what was raw material even though used as finished products for the manufacture of the vehicles. The High Court held that the words ‘industrial raw material (inputs)’ could not be given such a wide meaning as to result in widening the scope of concessional rate even to finished products nor did it find any merit in the submission of the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the order, mechanically, without applying his mind.
3. Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, at the relevant time, read as under:
“S. 13. Special rate of tax on certain sales or purchases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this part but subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed:
(a)***
(b) sales to or purchases by a registered dealer of goods required by him directly for use in the manufacture or processing of any goods for sale in Bihar or in course of inter-State trade or commerce.”
This section provided for special rate of tax on sale or purchase of goods used for manufacture or processing by a registered dealer in the State. The expression used was of wide import. Similar expressions used in taxing statutes have been construed to be of expansive nature. In J.K Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. S.T.O (1965) 1 SCR 900, AIR 1965 SC 1310, (1965) 16 STC 563 it was held that the expression, “in the manufacture of goods” would normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished products. The Court observed that where any particular process was so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient then the goods required in that process would fall within the expression, “in the manufacture of goods”. In Indian Copper Corpn. Ltd. v. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna AIR 1965 SC 891, (1965) 16 STC 259, the vehicles used for removing goods to the factory after mining operations were held to be covered in the expression, “goods intended for use in the manufacturing or processing of goods for such sale”. On such wide interpretation any goods used by the appellant which were integrally connected with manufacture or processing of vehicles would be covered in the section. But the concessional rate of tax in the relevant year was for use of any goods under the notification issued in exercise of power under Section 13(1)(b) which read as under:
“Notification
Dated 12th April, 1982.
S.O 604 — (1) In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Part I of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (Bihar Act No. 5 of 1981) and in partial modification of the notification issued from time to time on the subject, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that the sales tax on industrial raw material (inputs) payable under the said Section 13(1)(b) of the Act shall be at the rate of one percentum.
(2)***
(3) ***”
What requires consideration, therefore, is whether items such as tyres, tubes, batteries etc. purchased by the appellant for use in the manufacture of vehicles which are otherwise finished products could avail of concessional rate of tax at 1%. That would depend on the construction and understanding of the expression ‘industrial raw material (inputs)’ used in the notification. The word ‘raw material’ has not been defined in the Act. It has, therefore, to be understood in the ordinary and well-accepted connotation of it in the common parlance of the persons who deal with it. According to dictionary, it means ‘something which is used for manufacturing or producing the goods’. The ordinary common sense understanding of it is that it is something from which another new or distinct commodity can be produced. When it is used in a taxing statute it may have related meaning depending on the context in which it has been used. In C.C.E v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1989) 4 SCC 566, 1989 Supp (1) SCR 323, a question arose whether every ingredient used in the manufacture of goods which retains its dominant individual identity throughout and that which is burnt up or consumed is raw material. It was held that an item to satisfy the test of raw material must be such as should coalesce with the requirement that its utilisation is in the manufacturing process. And an ingredient which retained its identity as end product was as much raw material as that which was consumed in manufacture. The word ‘raw material’ has no fixed meaning. It may vary with the use to which it is put. An item may be raw material for manufacturing goods ‘A’ and the goods so produced may itself be raw material for goods ‘B’. For instance, batteries, tyres and tubes are by themselves finished products. They on their own cannot be considered to be raw material. But when it is used for manufacture of a vehicle then it becomes raw material for it as it is essential and necessary for producing the goods in which it has been used. No vehicle can operate or work nor can it be said to have been produced unless tyres, tubes and batteries are fixed to it. Use of these items is integrally connected with the ultimate product. They retain their identity in the end product. But that could not exclude it from being treated as raw material. Since the notification was issued under Section 13(1)(b) any goods which could be included in the expression ‘raw material’ would be entitled to concessional rate of tax provided it was useable in manufacture or processing of goods. Reading of the notification in any other manner would not be in harmony with the section. The effort of the learned counsel for the State to argue that the concessional rate of tax under the notification was available to raw material commonly understood and it could not extend to such items which were otherwise finished products, proceeded on misconception. The special rate of tax could be levied on any goods used in the manufacture. But the Government restricted it to raw materials. Yet the notification having been issued under Section 13(1)(b) the benefit would extend to every raw material used in the manufacture of goods. In other words the concessional rate was available not only to raw material but such raw material as was used in the manufacture of goods.
4. Raw material has been further explained by using the word ‘inputs’, which dictionarily means, ‘what is put in’, ‘enter’, ‘enter system’. The concessional rate of tax is thus applicable to that raw material that is put in the manufacture or use of the goods. In C.C.E v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 128, 1988 Supp (3) SCR 998 a question arose whether name-plates used by manufacturer of fans being, ‘input’ were exempt from payment of excise duty which provided that duty of excise leviable on such goods falling under Item 1-A of Serial No. 68 as used ‘inputs’ would be exempt. It was held that name-plate affixed on the fan was not a piece of decoration and the fan without name-plate could not be marketed, therefore, it was exempt as provided in the notification and the assessee was entitled to exemption. The tyres, tubes and batteries were purchased for being put in the vehicle, which could not be operative without it. They were thus ‘input’. The use of this word was indicative that the benefit was intended for every item which was raw material in the widest sense made wider by using the expression, ‘input’. The purpose was for broadening the meaning of raw material by including in it even those items which could be placed in the vehicle, to make it marketable as vehicles.
5. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to concessional rate of tax at 1% for such items as tyres, tubes and batteries which were used in the manufacture of the vehicle etc., as raw material.
6. The parties in the circumstances of the case shall bear their own costs.
Alert