http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: ASSESSING AUTHORITY-CUM-EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, GURGAON &

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. EAST INDIA COTTON MFG. CO. LTD.FARIDABAD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/07/1981

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, A.P. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1610            1982 SCR  (1)  55  1981 SCC  (3) 531        1981 SCALE  (3)1067

ACT:      Central Sales Tax Act 1956, (74 of 1956) Ss. 8(1), (2), (3)(b), 10,  10-A,&  Central  Sales  Tax  (Registration  and Turnover) Rules  1957,  Rules  12,  13-  Registered  Dealer- Certificates  of   Registration-Manufacture  and   sale   of textiles-Purchase of  dyeing  colours  and  other  chemicals after issuing ’C’ Forms-User of such goods for third parties on  job   contract  basis-Whether   such  use   amounts   to manufacture.      Interpretation of Statutes-Taxing Statute-Statute to be construed according  to plain  language-Judicial  paraphrase impermissible to Court.      Words &  Phrases- "For use by him in the manufacture or processing of  goods for sale "-Meaning of-Central Sales Tax Act, 1956,S. 8(3) (b).

HEADNOTE:      The Central  Sales Tax  Act 1956  and the Central Sales Tax (Registration,  and Turnover)  Rules 1957,  provide that when a  manufacturer who holds a Certificate of Registration under the  Act buys  goods for use by him in the manufacture of goods  for sale he would be charged tax at the lower rate of 3%  on his  furnishing a  declaration in  Form C  to  the Seller.      The assessee  carried on  business of manufacturing and processing textiles.  It was  registered  under  the  Punjab General Sales  Tax Act,  1948  and  held  a  Certificate  of Registration under  section 7  of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.  The   business  mentioned   in  the   Certificate  of Registration  was  textile  manufacturing,  sale.  purchase, wholesale distribution, sales and purchase of yarn waste and textile machinery;  and also  specified for  the purpose  of sub-section(l)  of  section  8,  dyeing  colours  and  other chemicals for  use in  manufacture. The  assessee  purchased these goods  in the course of inter-state trade and commerce on  the   basis  of  its  Certificate  of  Registration  and furnished to  the selling  dealers declarations  in  Form  C stating that  these goods  were purchased  for  use  by  the assessee in  the manufacturing  of goods  for sale.  On  the strength of  these declarations  the  selling  dealers  were taxed in  respect of  the sales  effected  by  them  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

assessee at the rate of 3 per cent under section 8(1) (b) of the Act.      The Excise  and  Taxation  Officer-appellant  issued  a notice calling  upon the  assessee to  show cause why action should not be taken under section 10 of the 56 Central Act  on  the  ground  that  the  assessee  had  been misusing the  Certificates of  Registration by doing sizing, bleaching and  dyeing for  third parties  on job  basis. The assessee contended  in  reply  that  neither  the  term  and conditions  of  the  Certificate  of  Registration  nor  the provisions of  section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Act required that the  goods purchased by the assessee must be used by it in manufacture  or processing  of its own goods intended for sale by  itself and  that it  would be sufficient compliance with the  requirement of  section 8  (3) (b)  read with  the Certificate of Registration even if the goods purchased were used by  the assessee  in manufacture or processing of goods for a  third party  under a  job contract  so  long  as  the manufactured or  processed goods  were intended  for sale by such third  party. This  contention was  not accepted by the appellant who  imposed the  penalty under section 10A of the Act.      The assessee’s  writ petition  to the  High  Court  was dismissed holding  that the  goods purchased by the assessee against its  Certificate of Registration could be used by it only in  manufacture of textiles intended for sale by itself and if  the goods  purchased were  used  in  manufacture  of textiles for  a third  party on the basis of a job contract, it would amount to user of the goods purchased for a purpose different from  that specified  in section 8 (3) (b) and the assessee would  be liable  to  be  proceeded  against  under section 10 and 10A.      The assessee’s  appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was allowed which held that all that section 8(3) (b) provided  was that  the goods  purchased must be used by assessee in  manufacture of  goods  for  sale  and  did  not require that  the sale  must be by the assessee himself. The prescription of  section  8  (3)  (b)  was  that  the  goods manufactured  must  be  for  sale,  without  any  qualifying expression  that   the  sale   must  be   by  the   assessee manufacturing the goods and therefore even if the goods were manufactured for  a  third  party,  so  long  as  they  were intended for  sale by  such third  party, the  case would be covered by the terms of the section.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD :  1 (i)  The Division Bench of the High Court was right in  holding that  even if the assessee carried out the work of sizing, bleaching and dyeing of textiles for a third party on  job contract  basis, its  case would be covered by the terms  of the  second sub-clause  of section  8 (3) (b), provided that  the textiles  so sized,  bleached and dyed by the assessee were intended for sale by such third party. [67 C]      (ii) If  it is proved in any proceeding initiated under section 10(d)  or  section  10A  that  the  textiles  sized, bleached or  dyed by  the assessee  for sale  by such  third party on  job contract  basis were  not intended for sale by such third  party as  would be evident if such textiles were in fact  not sold  by the  third party but were used for its own  purposes,   the  assessee   would  incur   the  penalty prescribed in those sections. [67 D]      Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S.R. Sharma, 31 S.T.C, 480 : Navsari  Cotton Mills  Ltd. v.  State of Gujarat 37 S.T.C.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

104 &  O. Parmasivan  v. State  of Kerala 1971 Tax L.R. 1241 overruled. 57      2. It  is a  well-settled rule of interpretation that a statute must  be construed   according to its plain language and neither  should anything  be added nor subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature clearly so intended. [64E]      Thompson v.  Gold and Co. [1910] A.C. 409: Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans [1910] A.C. 444 referred to.      3(i) The  legislature as also the rule making authority used the  expression "for  use.....in the manufacture.....of goods for  sale" without indicating that the sale must be by any particular  individual. The  legislature has  designedly abstained from using any words of limitation indicating that the sale  should be  by the  registered dealer manufacturing the goods. Where the legislature wanted to restrict the sale to one  by the  registered dealer  himself. the  legislature used the  qualifying words  "by him"  after the  words  "for resale" in  the  first  sub-clause  of  section  8  (3)  (b) indicating that the resale contemplated by that provision is resale by  the registered dealer purchasing the goods and by no one else. While enacting the second sub-clause of section 8 (3)  (b) the  legislature did  not qualify  the words "for sale" by adding the words "by him". This deliberate omission of the  words "by  him" after the words "for sale" indicates that the  legislature did  not intend  that the  sale of the manufactured goods  should be  restricted to  the registered dealer manufacturing the goods. [64 H-65 C]      (ii) The  Court must construe the language of section 8 (3) (b)  according to its plain words and it cannot write in the section words which are not there. To read the words "by him" after  the words  "for sale" in section 8 (3) (b) would not  be   construction  but  judicial  paraphrase  which  is impermissible to the Court. [65 E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal  No.  756 (NT) of 1973.      From the  judgment and order dated the 28th March, 1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 581 of 1970      R.N. Sachdev and Miss A. Subhashini, for the Appellant.      A.K. Sen,  K.K. Jain,  S.K. Gupta, Bishambar Lal and P. Dayal, for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, J.  This appeal  by special  leave  raises  a short but  interesting question of construction of section 8 (3)  (b)   of  the   Central  Sales   Tax  Act,   1956.  The determination of  this question has given rise to divergence of opinion  amongst different  High Courts  but if  we  have regard to the well recognised canons of construc- 58 tion of  taxing statues  and also focus our attention on the object and  intendment of  the section,  we do  not think it presents much  difficulty of solution. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.      The assessee  is a limited company registered under the Companies Act,  1956 and  having its  registered  office  at Calcutta. The  assessee owns a factory in Faridabad where it carries  on   business  of   manufacturing  and   processing textiles.  The  assessee  is  registered  under  the  Punjab General Sales  Tax Act,  1948 as  in force  in the  State of Haryana and  at material times it also held a Certificate of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Registration under  section 7  of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the  Central  Act).  The business mentioned  in the  Certificate of  Registration was Textile    manufacturing,    sale,    purchase,    wholesale distribution; sales  and purchase  of  yarn  and  waste  and textile machinery  and the  Certificate of Registration also specified inter  alia the following classes of goods for the purpose of  sub-section (l)  of section  8, namely,  "dyeing colours, and  other chemicals  for use  in manufacture." The assessee purchased  these goods in the course of inter-state trade and  commerce on  the  basis  of  its  Certificate  of Registration  and   furnished   to   the   selling   dealers declarations  in  Form  C  stating  that  these  goods  were purchased for  use by  the assessee  in the manufacturing of goods for  sale. On  the strength  of these declarations the selling dealers  were taxed in respect of the sales effected by them  to the  assessee at  the rate  of 3  per cent under section 8 (1) (b) of the Central Act. The goods purchased by the assessee  were used  partly for  sizing,  bleaching  and dyeing of  textiles belonging to the assessee and partly for sizing, bleaching  and dyeing of textiles belonging to third parties on job basis.      On  17th   September  1966,  the  Excise  and  Taxation Officer, Gurgaon  issued a  notice calling upon the assessee to show  cause why  action should  not be  taken against  it under section  10 of  the Central Act on the ground that the assessee had  been misusing  the certificate of registration by doing  sizing, bleaching  and dyeing for third parties on job basis.  This was  followed by  another notice dated 13th July 1967  in the  same terms  by the  Excise  and  Taxation Officer in  regard to  the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966- 67. The  assessee replied to the notices by its letter dated 21st July  1967 asking  for  details  and  circumstances  in which, according  to the  Excise and  Taxation Officer,  the assessee had misused the certificate of registration so that the assessee could 59 satisfy the  Excise and Taxation Officer that no such misuse had, in fact, taken place. In response to this query made by the assessee, the Excise and Taxation Officer formulated the case against the assessee in the following words.           "The company  purchased  goods  from  outside  the           State of Punjab (now Haryana) on submission of ’C’           Forms for  the purpose  of use  in manufacture  of           goods for  sale. But  instead  of  doing  so,  the           company   used    those   purchases    partly   in           manufacturing its  own goods  for sale  and partly           for doing  job work for other parties. The Company           could  not   use   the   material   concessionally           purchased, for  the job  work  as  that  does  not           constitute ’sale’." The assessee  contended in  reply that neither the terms and conditions  of  the  certificate  of  registration  nor  the provisions of  section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Act required that the  goods purchased by the assessee must be used by it in manufacture  or processing  of its own goods intended for sale by  itself and  that it  would be sufficient compliance with the  requirement of  section 8  (3) (b)  read with  the Certificate of Registration even if the goods purchased were used by assessee in manufacture or processing of goods for a third  party   under  a   job  contract,   so  long  as  the manufactured or  processed goods  were intended  for sale by such third  party. This  contention was however not accepted by the  Excise and  Taxation  Officer  and  he  consequently issued notices to the assessee for the assessment year 1962-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

63 to  1966-67 proposing to impose penalty under section 10A of the  Central Act  on the  ground that  the  assessee  had "contravened the provisions of section 10 of the Act ibid by purchasing goods  for the purpose specified in clause (b) of subsection  (3)  of  section  8"  but  had  failed  "without reasonable excuse  to make  use of  the goods  for any  such purpose." The  assessee thereupon  filed a  writ petition in the High  Court of  Punjab  and  Haryana  for  quashing  and setting aside  the various  notices issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer  seeking to  proceed against  the  assessee under sections 10 and 10A of the Central Act.      The writ  petition came  up for hearing before a single Judge of  the High  Court who rejected it on the ground that on a  true interpretation  of section  8 (3)  (b), the goods purchased  by   the  assessee  against  its  certificate  of registration could  be used  by it  only in  manufacture  of textiles intended for sale by itself and if 60 the goods purchased were used in manufacture of textiles for a third  party on  the basis  of a  job contract,  it  would amount  to  user  of  the  goods  purchased  for  a  purpose different from  that specified  in section 8 (3) (b) and the assessee would  be liable  to  be  proceeded  against  under section 10  and 10A  and in  the circumstances  the  notices issued against  the assessee  must be  held to be valid. The assessee preferred  an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court  and before  the Division  Bench, two contentions were advanced  on behalf  of the  Revenue in  support of the decision of  the learned  single Judge. The first contention was that  the sizing,  bleaching and  dyeing of textiles did not  amount   to  manufacture  of  textiles  and  the  goods purchased by  the assessee  could not  therefore be  said to have been used by it in manufacture of textiles as specified in the  Certificate of  Registration and  hence the assessee had failed  to make  use of  the  goods  purchased  for  the purpose  specified   in  sec.   8  (3)  (b)  read  with  the Certificate of  Registration. This  contention was negatived by  the   Division  Bench  which  held  that  though  sizing bleaching and dyeing of grey cloth did amount to processing, it  had   the  effect   of  converting  grey  cloth  into  a commercially different marketable commodity and it therefore amounted also  to manufacture  of a commercially new product and the user of the goods purchased in sizing, bleaching and dyeing grey  cloth was  consequently  within  the  terms  of section 8 (3) (b) read with the Certificate of Registration. This view  taken by the Division Bench was not challenged on behalf of  the Revenue  in the appeal before us and hence we need not  say anything  more about it. The second contention urged before  the Division  Bench was-and  that was the only contention pressed upon us on behalf of the Revenue-that the interpretation placed  on section  8 (3)  (b) by the learned single Judge  was correct  and in  order to  come within the terms of  that section, the assessee was required to use the goods purchased in manufacture of its own goods intended for sale by  itself and if the assessee used the goods purchased in manufacture of goods for a third party, the user would be for a purpose different from that specified in section 8 (3) (b), even  though the  manufactured goods  were intended for sale by  such third party. The Division Bench did not accept this contention  of the  Revenue and  over-turning the  view taken by  the learned  single Judge, the Division Bench held that all  that section 8 (3) (b) provided was that the goods purchased must  be used  by the  assessee in  manufacture of goods for  sale and did not require that the sale must be by the assessee  himself. The prescription of section 8 (3) (b)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

was that the goods manufactured must be 61 for sale,  without any  qualifying expression  that the sale must  be   by  the  assessee  manufacturing  the  goods  and therefore even  if the  goods were  manufactured for a third party, so  long as they were intended for sale by such third party, the  case would  be  covered  by  the  terms  of  the section. The  Division Bench  accordingly allowed  the  writ petition and  quashed  and  set  aside  the  notices  issued against the  assessee. The  Revenue thereupon  preferred the present appeal  after obtaining  certificate of fitness from the High Court.      It will  be seen from the above statement of facts that the real  controversy between  the parties  in  the  present appeal centres  round the  true interpretation  of section 8 (3) (b).  We will  presently set out that section but before we do  so, it is necessary to refer to some other provisions of the Central Act as well, for it is a well-settled rule of interpretation that  no one  section should  be construed in isolation but  that the  statute should  be read  as a whole with each  part throwing  light on the meaning of the other. Section 6 is the charging section and it levies Sales Tax on every dealer  "on all sales effected by him in the course of inter state  trade or  commerce during any year." Section 8, as its  marginal note indicates, provides the rates at which Sales Tax  shall be chargeable on inter-state sales effected by a  dealer. That  section and  we are setting out here the section as it stood at the material time provides inter alia as follows:      "8(1)Every dealer,  who in  the course  of  Inter-State           trade or commerce-           (a)  sells to the Government any goods; or           (b)  sell-to a  registered dealer  other than  the                Government goods  of the description referred                to in subsection (3),           shall be  liable to  pay tax under this Act, which           shall be three per cent of his turnover.      (2)  The tax  payable by  any dealer on his turnover in           so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates           to the  sale of goods in the course of inter-state           trade or  commerce not  falling within sub-section           (1).           (a)  In the  case  of  declared  goods,  shall  be                calculated at the rate applicable to the sale                or  purchase   of  such   goods  inside   the                appropriate State; and 62           (b)  in the  case of  goods, other  than  declared                goods shall  be calculated at the rate of ten                per cent  or at  the rate  applicable to  the                sale or  purchase of  such goods  inside  the                appropriate State whichever is higher;           and for the purpose of making any such calculation           any such  dealer, shall  be deemed  to be a dealer           liable to  pay tax  under the sales tax law of the           appropriate State,  notwithstanding  that  he,  in           fact, may not be so liable under that law.      (2-A)      (3)  The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section           (1)-           (a)       ...            ...            ...           (b)  are goods  of class  or classes  specified in                the certificate  of the  registration of  the                registered dealer  purchasing  the  goods  as                being intended  for resale  by him or subject

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

              to any  rules made  by the Central Government                in  this   behalf  for  use  by  him  in  the                manufacture or  processing of  goods for sale                or  in   mining  or   in  the  generation  or                distribution of electricity or any other form                of power;      (4)  The provisions  of sub-section (1) shall not apply           to any  sale in the course of inter-State trade or           commerce  unless  the  dealer  selling  the  goods           furnishes  to  the  prescribed  authority  in  the           prescribed manner-           (a)  a declaration  duly filled  and signed by the                registered dealer  to whom the goods are sold                containing the  prescribed particulars  in  a                prescribed form  obtained from the prescribed                authority;                or           (b)  if the  goods are  sold to the Government not                being a  registered dealer,  a certificate in                the prescribed form duly filled and signed by                a duly authorised officer of the Government. 63      (5)       ...            ...            ... This section  provides for three different rates of tax, one in subsection  (1) clauses  (a) and  (b),  another  in  sub- section (2)  clause (a)  and the  third in  sub-section  (2) clause (b).  The rate  of tax  provided in  sub-section  (1) clauses (a)  and (b)  is lower  than that provided in clause (a) or  clause (b) of sub-section (2). We are concerned here with clause  (b) of  sub-section (1)  since it is under that provision that  the sales  of dyeing  colours and  chemicals made to  the assessee  were charged  to tax by the Sales Tax Authorities under  the Central  Act. Sub-section  (1) clause (b) applies  to sales  to a registered dealer other than the Government of  "goods of the description referred to in sub- section (3)".  Sub-section (3)  specifies the goods referred to in  sub-section (1)  clause (b)  and clause  (b) of  sub- section (3)  describes these  goods as  being "goods  of the class  or   classes  specified   in   the   Certificate   of Registration of  the registered  dealer purchasing the goods as   being    intended......for   use    by   him   in   the manufacture............of goods for sale.....’.Now the class of goods specified in the Certificate of Registration of the assessee in  the present  case was "dyeing colours and other chemicals intended  for use  in the  manufacture of textiles for sale"  and therefore  on the  assessee purchasing dyeing colour  and  other  chemicals  against  its  Certificate  of Registration for  use by  it in  manufacture of textiles for sale, the  selling dealers  were liable  to pay  tax on  the sales at  the lower  rate of three per cent under clause (b) of  sub-section   (1),  provided   the  assessee   furnished declaration Form  C to  the selling  dealers and the selling dealers submitted  the same  to the  Prescribed Authority as required by  sub-section (4)  clause  (a)  and  plainly  and unquestionably the  benefit of  this lower rate of tax would enure to the assessee, since it is common knowledge that the incidence of  Sales Tax  is always  passed on by the selling dealer to  the purchaser.  Rule 12  of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and  Turnover) Rules  1957 made by the Central Government in  exercise of the power conferred under section 13 sub-section (1) provides that the declaration referred to in sub-section  (4) clause  (a)  shall  be  in  Form  C  and accordingly, declarations  in Form  C  duly  filled  in  and signed were  supplied by the assessee to the selling dealers against the  purchases of  dyeing colours  and chemicals and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

these declaration  contained a  certificate by  the assessee that the  goods purchased  were for  use in  manufacture  of goods for  sale. Rule  13  also  provides  "that  the  goods referred to  in  clause  (b)  of  sub-section  (3)  which  a registered dealer  may purchase  shall be goods intended for use    by     him    as     raw    materials,     processing materials....stores.......in   the    manufacture.........of goods for sale." The assessee was therefore 64 clearly bound  to use  the dyeing colours and other chemical purchased by  it against its Certificate of Registration and the declarations  in Form  C in  manufacture of textiles for sale. If  the assessee failed without reasonable cause to do so and used the dyeing colours and other chemicals purchased by it  for a different purpose, then under section 10 clause (d)  the   assessee  would  be  liable  to  punishment  with imprisonment  or  fine  or  both  and  under  section  10  A subsection (1),  the assessee  would also incur liability to penalty in a sum not exceeding one-and-a half times, the tax which have  been levied  under sub-section (2) in respect of the sale  to him  of the  goods, if the sale had been a sale falling within that sub-section.      The question  which therefore  arises for consideration is as  to what  is the  scope and  meaning of the expression "for  use.......in  the  manufacture..........of  goods  for sale" occurring  in section 8 (3) (b) and in the declaration in Form  C  and  Rule  13.  Does  it  mean  that  the  goods manufactured by  a registered  dealer  by  using  the  goods purchased against  his Certificate  of Registration  and the declaration in  Form C  must be  intended for sale by him or does it  also include a case where goods are manufactured by a registered dealer for the third party under a job contract and the  manufactured goods  are intended  for sale  by such third  party   ?  Now   it  is   a  well   settled  rule  of interpretation that a statute must be construed according to its plain  language and neither should anything be added nor substracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that  the legislature  clearly so intended. It was said more  than seven decades ago by Lord Mersey in Thompson v. Goold and Company [1910] A.C. 409;           "It is  a strong  thing to  read into  an  Act  of           Parliament words  which are  not there  and in the           absence of clear necessity, it is a wrong thing to           do."      Lord Loreborn  L.C. also  observed in Vickers, Sons and Maxim Limited v. Evans [1910] A.C. 444;           "We are  not entitled to read words into an Act of           Parliament unless  clear reason  for it  is to  be           found within the four corners of the Act itself." Now here we find that the expression used by the legislature as also the rule making authority is simpliciter "for use-in the manufacture-of  goods for  sale" without any addition of words indicating 65 that the  sale must  be by  any particular  individual.  The legislature   has designedly  abstained from using any words of limitation  indicating that  the sale  should be  by  the registered dealer  manufacturing goods. It is significant to note that  where the legislature wanted to restrict the sale to one  by the  registered dealer  himself, the  legislature used the  qualifying words  "by him"  after the  words  "for resale" in  the  first  sub-clause  of  section  8  (3)  (b) indicating clearly  that the  resale  contemplated  by  that provision is  resale by the registered dealer purchasing the goods and by no one else, but while enacting the second sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

clause of  section 8 (3) (b) the legislature did not qualify the words  "for sale"  by adding  the words  "by him".  This deliberate omission  of the  words "by  him" after the words "for sale"  clearly indicates  that the  legislature did not intend that  the sale  of the  manufactured goods  should be restricted to the registered dealer manufacturing the goods. If  the   legislature  intended   that  the   sale  of   the manufactured  goods  should  be  by  the  registered  dealer manufacturing the  goods and  by no  one else,  there is  no reason why  the words "by him should have been omitted after the words  "for sale"  when the  legislature  considered  it necessary to  introduce those  words after  the  words  "for resale" in  the first  sub-clause of  section 8 (3) (b). The omission of  the words  "by him"  is clearly  deliberate and intentional  and   it  cannot   be  explained  away  on  any reasonable hypothesis  except that  the legislature  did not intend that  the sale  should be  limited  to  that  by  the registered dealer  manufacturing the  goods. The  Court must construe the  language of section 8 (3) (b) according to its plain words  and it  cannot write in the section words which are not  there. To  read the  words "by him" after the words "for sale"  in section  8 (3)  (b) would not be construction but judicial paraphrase which is impermissible to the Court. It is also important to note that the word ’use’ is followed by the words "by him" clearly indicating that the use of the goods purchased in the manufacture of goods for sale must be by  the  registered  dealer  himself  but  these  words  are significantly absent  after the words "for sale", On a plain grammatical construction,  these words  govern  and  qualify only "use"  and cannot  be projected  into  the  words  "for sale". The  goods purchased by the registered dealer must be used by  him in  the manufacture of goods which are intended for sale  but such sale need not be by the registered dealer himself: it may be by any one.      Now  ordinarily   when  the  language  of  a  statutory provision is  plain and  unambiguous, there  is no  need  to resort to the object and purpose of the enactment because in such a case, the language 66 best dealers the intention of the law-giver. But, even if we look at the object and intendment of section 8 (1) (b), read with section  8(3) (b),  we reach  the same  conclusion. The object of  providing a lower rate of tax under 8 (1) (b) for sales of  goods described  in section  8 (3)  (b) clearly is that when  goods are  purchased by  a registered  dealer for being used  by him in the manufacture or processing of goods which are  intended for sale, the goods which are ultimately sold should  not become  unduly expensive to the consumer by addition of  a high  rate of  sales tax  on the  purchase of goods which are used in the manufacture or processing of the goods ultimately  sold. Now if this be the object of section 8 (1)  (b)  read  with  section  8  (3)  (b)  it  should  be immaterial whether the sale of the manufactured or processed goods  is   by  the   registered  dealer   manufacturing  or processing goods or by another person for whom the goods are manufactured or  processed by  the  registered  dealer.  The intendment of the statutory provision being that the cost of the manufactured  or processed  goods to the consumer should not be  unduly enhanced  by reason  of higher rate of tax on the goods  used in  the manufactured  or processing  of  the goods sold,  it is  obvious that if this intendment is to be fully effectuated,  the benefit  of the  statutory provision should be available irrespective of whether the manufactured or  processed   goods  are  sold  to  the  consumer  by  the registered dealer  or by  some one else who has got the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

manufactured by  the registered  dealer.  It  was  for  this reason that  the legislature deliberately omitted to add the words "by  him" after  the words "for sale" so as to make it clear that  this sub clause of section 8 (3) (b) would apply even  if   the  goods   manufactured  or  processed  by  the registered dealer  were intended  for sale by some one else. The words "for sale" following upon the word ’goods’ clearly indicate that  the goods  manufactured or  processed by  the registered dealer  must be goods for sale or in other words, they must  be goods  intended for  sale and it is immaterial whether they  are intended for sale by the registered dealer himself or  by anyone else. This sub clause of section 8 (3) (b) would  therefore clearly cover a case where a registered dealer manufactures  or processes goods for a third party on a job  contract and uses in the manufacture or processing of such  goods,   materials  purchased   by  him   against  his Certificate of  Registration and the declarations in Form C, so long  as the manufactured or processed goods are intended for sale  by such third party. It is of course, true that if proceedings are  taken against  the registered  dealer under section 10  clause (d)  or section  10A, the  question would arise whether  the goods  manufactured or  processed by  the registered 67 dealer for  a third  party were  intended for  sale by  such third party  and that  would have to be decided by the Court or the  competent Authority according to the appropriate and relevant  rules   of  evidence,   but  merely  because  some difficulty may  arise in  the determination of this question by reason  of the  third party  coming into the picture that would be  no ground for refusing to place on the language of section 8  (3)  (b)  the  only  construction  which  it  can reasonably bear.      We are therefore of the view that the Division Bench of the High  Court was  right  in  holding  that  even  if  the assessee carried  out the  work  of  sizing,  bleaching  and dyeing of  textiles for a third party on job contract basis, its case  would be  covered by  the terms of the second sub- clause of  section 8  (3) (b), provided that the textiles so sized, bleached  and dyed  by the assessee were intended for sale by such third party. If it is proved in any proceedings initiated under  section 10  (d) or  section  10A  that  the textiles sized, bleached or dyed by the assessee for a third party on  job contract  basis were  not intended for sale by such third  party, as would be evident if such textiles were in fact  not sold  by the  third party but were used for its own  purposes,   the  assessee   would  incur   the  penalty prescribed in those sections.      We  find  that  there  are  three  decisions  of  three different High  Court which have taken a view different from the one  taken by  us. One  is the  decision of  the  Madhya Pradesh High  Court in  Commissioner of  Sales Tax  v. S. R. Sharma 31 Sales Tax Cases, 480, the other is the decision of the Gujarat  High Court  in Navsari  Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Gujarat 37 Sales Tax Cases 104 and the third is the decision of  the Kerala High Court in O. Parmasivan v. State of Kerala  1971  Taxation  Law  Reports  1241.  These  three decisions proceed  on an erroneous interpretation of section 8 (3) (b) and must be deemed to be over ruled by the present decision.      We accordingly  quash and  set aside  the notices which have been  issued against  the assessee  on the  basis  that merely by using dyeing colours and other chemicals purchased by it  in sizing  bleaching and  dyeing textiles  for  third parties on  job contract basis, the assessee contravened the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

provisions of section 10 clause (d) and 68 rendered itself  liable to  penalty udder  section 10A.  The appeal will  in the circumstances stand dismissed with costs throughout. N.V.K.                                      Appeal dismissed 69