High Court · 2012

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the view taken above is directly in conflict with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others -Vs.- Universal Hydrocarbons Co. Ltd and another, 1994 Supp (3 ) SCC 621, laying down as follows :- We are totally unable accept this line of reasoning. Once the entry is \ (cid:28)18. coke in all its forms\ irrespective of the Raw Petroleum Coke loses its original identity or in the process of manufacture Calcined Petroleum Coke is produced, cannot take Calcined Petroleum Coke out of the purview of this entry. In more of less identical situation, this Court held in India Carbon Ltd. Vs. Superintende nt of Taxes, Gauhati (1971) 3 SCC 612 that Petroleum Coke is one form the coal g overned by the expression ’coal’ within Sections 14(l-a). The relevant extract o f the judgment is as under: \It is not disputed that petroleum coke is covered by Clauses(i) of Section 14 w hich reads ’coal including coke in all its forms\ the State was not competent to levy tax at a rate exceeding the one given in Section 15 (a) of the Central Act . * * * * The High Court was of the view that the word ’coal’ includes coke in all its for ms in clause (i) of Section 14 of the Central Act and must be taken to mean coke derived from coal. In other words it must be coke, which had been derived or ac quired from coal by following the usual process of heating or burning. The conte ntion, therefore, of the appellant was negatived that petroleum coke was covered by the aforesaid provision of the Central Act.\

19. This decision fully supports the respondent. The fact that Calcined Petr oleum Coke is a different commodity is of little consequence. In interpreting th e scope of Hides and Skins which fail under Section 14(i) (iii) of the Act, this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mahi Traders (1989) 1 SCC 724, held at pages 7 34-35 as under : \According to him the products purchased and sold are not different even under t he classification by way of the dichotomy between raw and dressed hides and skin s under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Under the Central Sales Tax Act, t he appellant is in a much better position, because all the hides and skins are b rought together in one entry, Whether raw or dressed, the product falls; under t he same entry. * * * * The operations involved in leather manufacture however fall into three groups. P re-tanning operations includes soaking, liming, de-liming, bating and pickling, and post-tanning operations are splitting and shaving, neutralising, bleaching, dyeing, fat-liquoring and stuffing, setting out, samming, drying, staking and fi nishing. These operations bring about chemical changes in the leather substance and influence the physical characteristics of the leather, and different varieti es of commercial leather are obtained by suitably adjusting the manufacturing op erations. These processes need not be gone into in detail but the passages relie d upon clearly show that hides and skins are termed \leather’ even as soon as th e process of tanning is over and the danger of their putrefaction is put an end to. The entry in the CST Act, however, includes within its scope hides arid skin s until they are ’dressed’. This, as we have seen, represents the stage when the y undergo the process of finishing and assume a form in which they can be readil y utilised for manufacture of various commercial articles. In this view, it is h ardly material that coloured leather may be form of leather or may even be said to represent a different commercial commodity. The statutory entry is comprehens ive enough to include the products emerging from hides and skins until the proce ss of dressing or finishing is done.\ (emphasis supplied) It is clear from the above judgment that raw petroleum coke and calcined petroleum coke have been treated to be a part of one entry (cid:28)coke in all its for ms (cid:29). The principle that different commercial commodities attract separate tax wa s distinguishable. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of same commodity, it is not necessary to go into the general principle whether differen t commercial commodities will attract separate tax as laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pyare Lal Malhotra (197 6) 1 SCC 834 which was held to be distinguishable in its applicability to the en try of (cid:28)coke in all its forms (cid:29). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct that a fresh dec ision be taken in the matter, in the light of above, within three months from th e date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.