1 The Revenue contended that the sale of paints which had undergone mixing (through a computerised process with the aid of a DTS machine) amounted to ‘manufacture’, thereby resulting in a new product, which was a fresh incidence of taxation.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/legal-analysis-of-claim-for-loss-of-profit-in-delayed-contract/
The base paint can also be used as paint.”
In the impugned order, the High Court after noticing a judgment of this court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
The Revenue urged that the findings in the impugned order are erroneous, and relied upon Sonebhadra Fuels (supra) to argue that the High Court was bound by this Court’s decision since it was directly on an interpretation of the expression ‘manufacture’ in the same enactment.
Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 to state that the manufacturing process can vary, and that the process of producing every type of variation, or finishing of goods, would not amount to ‘manufacture’ as contained in the statute unless it resulted in the emergence of a new commercial commodity.
The resultant article i.e., the paint of a different shade, did not result in a new commercial product.
In common parlance, the new product was nothing else but ‘paint’, and not a different article.
Pending application(s), 4 if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. M/S. KUMAR PAINTS AND MILL STORES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR (2023 INSC 193)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005937-005937 / 2011
