STATE OF JHARKHAND & Ors. v. LINDE INDIA LIMITED & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Bihar Finance Act, 1957 s. 6
- Bihar Finance Act, 1981 ss. 8, 13(1)(b), 45
- Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Civil Appeal No. 8061-8064 of 2022
This judgmentBuilt from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
agent’ and its main function is to reduce the carbon content as per the requirement. The said findings accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the Joint Commissioner-Revisional Authority were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court lacks the expertise on deciding the disputed questions and more particularly the technical aspect which could have been left to the Committee consisting of experts. [Para 7][872-E-G]
1.3 Even otherwise on merits also, in light of the findings recorded by the committee, accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the Joint Commissioner-Revisional Authority, it is required to be considered, whether the oxygen gas used in the manufacture of processing of goods, the same can be said to be a “raw material” for the manufacture of the end product-steel. [Para 8][872-H; 873-A]
1.4 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd.’s case to the facts of the case on hand and the findings by the committee consisting of six expert members recorded in the detailed inspection report and when it has been found that the oxygen gas is used as a ‘refining agent’ and its main function is to reduce the carbon content as per the requirement, the oxygen gas cannot be said to be a “raw material” used in the manufacture of the end product – steel. Under the circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the concessional rate of tax @ 2% treating the same as “raw material” in the manufacture of the end product and are liable to pay tax @ 3% on the sale thereof. The High Court has seriously erred in holding contrary and by interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by all the three authorities below. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Furthermore, prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, tax was being paid at 3%. No dispute was raised at that time. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside and the assessment order passed by the assessing officer, confirmed up to the revisional authority-Joint Commissioner is restored. [Paras 10-12][875-B-F] A B C D E F G H STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS v. LINDE INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER 861 Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M/s Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 264 : [1988] 3 SCR 248 – relied on.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.