COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW versus SUPER COTTON BOWL REFILLING WORKS & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 02-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW 
A 
v. 
SUPER COTTON BOWL REFILLING WORKS & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1989 
ISABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948: Sections 2(e-i), 2(h), 10(C), 11 and 
~ 
35(5)-Whether revision lies to High Court from decision of Commis-
sioner which has been subject matter of appeal before Tribunal-Effect 
_.. of amendments of U. P. Act of 1979 and U. P. Act 22 of 1984. 
c 
Revision to High Court under section 11 lies on ground that case 
·-t 
~ 
involved a question of law. 
Administrative Law: Order of Commissioner under section 35 
U. P. Sales Tax Act 1948-Whether quasi-judicial, judicial or adminis-
trative in nature. 
D 
Statutory Interpretation: Intention of legislature-A slippery 
phrase-Intention to be ascertained from the words used and spirit and 
reason of the law. 
Words and Phrases: "Final" -Meaning of. 
The assessee-respondent in the appeals was engaged in the repair· 
ing and relllllng of cotton bowls on the shafts which are used as part of 
calendering machine in the textile industry. The cotton bowl is a shaft 
made of steel on which a thick layer of cotton is pasted and affixed. It is 
used in the textile finishing industries as an essential part of the 
calendering machine. In the course of its use the cotton pasted on the 
shaft loses its thickness and shape and after sometime it requires repair-
ing and refilling. 
The assessee moved an application under section 35 of the U.P. 
Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the decision inter a/ia included the question 
whether the job of repairing and refilling of cotton bowl and the process 
involved therein amounted to "manufacture" or "sale" within the 
meaning of the Act. 
E 
F 
G 
The Commissioner of Sales Tax decided both these questions 
against the assessee, and the assessee preferred an appeal before the 
H 
421 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It held ~ 
that the process of repairing and refilling of cotton bowl of the custom-
ers did not amount to "manufacture" as defined under section 2(e-i) of 
the Act. It further held that such an activity of the assessee amounted to 
"sale" as defined under section 2(h) of the Act as amended by the U .P. 
Sales Tax Amendment and Validation Act, 1985. 
The ... Commissioner of Sales Tax preferred a revision to the High 
~ 
Court ~hich went into the question whether a further revision lay to the 
~ 
High Court. It came to the conclusion having regard to the scheme of 
the provisions contained in section 35 and the amendment made by the,.. 
U.P. Act 12of1979, and the earlier Division Bench decision of the High 
Court in lndo Lube Refineries v. Sales Tax Officer, [1987] 66 S.T.C.145 
(All) that no further revision lay to the High Court from the order of the 
Tribunal. The High Court accordingly dismissed the revision. 
The Commissioner appealed by special leave to this Court. 
On the question: whethe.r a revision shall lie to the High Court 
from the decision of the Commissioner under section 35 of the U.P. 
Sales Tax Act which has been the subject matter of an appeal before the 
Tribunal. 
Dismissing the Appeals, the Court, 
HELD: I. The very language of section 35 of the U.P. Sales Tax 
Act, 1948 which enjoins a decision by the Commissioner envisages that 
the decision is quasi-judicial or judicial and cannot be characterised as 
administrative. The question is whether on the language of the section a 
revision is entertainable from the decision of the Commissioner which 
has been subjected to an appeal to the Tribunal. In view of the language 
used specifically in the absence of a provision that such a revision will be 
maintainable such revision will not be. [435C-E] 
2. Sub-section (5) of section 35 after the amendment states that 
the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under this section shall, 
subject to an appeal to the Tribunal, be final. In view of the language of 
that section, it cannot contemplate a further revision to the High Court 
against a decision of the Tribunal. [435E-F] 
lndo Lube Refineries v. Sales Tax Officer Sector-/. Gorakhpur, 
H 
[1987] 66 STC 145, approved. 
-~· 
COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. COTTON BOWL WORKS 
423 
3. In the instant case, the right of appeal has been given under 
the Act not to any ordinary Court of the country under the . Code of 
Civil Procedure but to the courts enumerated under the Sales Tax Act, 
and the revision is conte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.