Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax and others (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that full set-off not admissible under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, set-off available after reducing 6% of purchase price under Rule 41D(3)(a), on furnace oil used in manufacture of goods partly sold locally and partly transferred to branches outside the State.
Facts- The present petition is preferred by the petitioner mainly on the question of law that whether on the correct interpretation of Rule 41-D of Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the full set-off is available under Rule 41D main provision or the set off is available after reducing 6 per cent of purchase price under sub-rule 3(a) of Rule 41D on purchases of furnace oil used in manufacture of goods partly sold locally and partly transferred to branches outside the state?
Notably, the Tribunal, vide the said Impugned Order, has allowed set off to Borosil by reducing 6% of purchase price from the taxes paid on purchase of furnace oil, which is used in the manufacture of taxable goods transferred to the branches of Borosil, under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
Conclusion- Held that the logical corollary would be to apply the provisions of Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Rules as it stands, without reading it down, on the purchase of furnace oil in proportion to the finished goods despatched to the branches of Borosil. We do not find it legal or proper to go behind the factual findings in the given proceedings, more so, in the absence of any perversity, much less illegality. In fact, both the Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 30 April 2002 and the Larger bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Pudumjee Pulp have correctly interpreted the Rule and Sub– Rule strictly following the principles of strict interpretation. Considering the expression “goods which are despatched” as it appears in Sub Rule 3(a) of Rule 41D of the Sales Tax Rules, we have already expressed our view above. Therefore, any other interpretation would tantamount to reading down the provision and expanding the scope of the Rule and the Sub-Rule which we refrain from doing particularly, not losing sight of the fact that we are dealing with a fiscal statute, in the present case.
