Holding

The Supreme Court held that the empty bottles were "used otherwise" under clause (a) of Section 7-A, making the purchase turnover taxable, that the earlier Clarifications are not enforceable as they conflict with the statutory interpretation, and that cash discounts are excluded from turnover.

Summary

Mohan Breweries purchased empty bottles from unregistered dealers for bottling its beer and IMFL. The revenue argued that the purchase turnover of these bottles was liable to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, while the assessee claimed exemption based on earlier Clarifications and that the bottles were not consumed or used in manufacture. The Supreme Court applied the principles from Nandanam Construction Co. and interpreted "consume or use ... otherwise" to include the bottling process, holding that the bottles were "used otherwise" and thus attracted purchase tax. The Court also held that the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 could not override the statutory provision as interpreted by the courts, and that cash discounts to TASMAC are excluded from turnover under Explanation 2(iii) of Section 2(r). Consequently, the revenue's appeal was partly allowed and the assessee's appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the purchase turnover of empty bottles used for bottling is liable to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Whether the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 are binding and can be invoked to exempt the purchase turnover from tax.
Whether cash discounts offered by the assessee to TASMAC are taxable under Explanation 2(iii) to Section 2(r) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957s. 6-A
Haryana Sales Tax Act, 1969s. 9
Kerala General Sales Tax Acts. 5
Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959s. 7
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959s. 28-A, s. 2(r), s. 3(7), s. 3(8), s. 7-A

Subjects

purchase taxSection 7-Aempty bottlesbottlingconsumptionuse otherwiseclarificationscash discountTamil Nadu sales taxstatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2020] 6 S.C.R. 865 865

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. A
v.
MOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 7164 of 2013)
JUNE 29, 2020*
B
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – s.7-A – The assessee
is engaged in the business of manufacture of Beer and IMFL
products – For the purpose of the said business of manufacture of
Beer and IMFL, the assessee purchased empty bottles from
unregistered dealers situated outside the State as well as from non- C
dealers – The High Court held that the purchase of empty bottles
from unregistered dealers is exigible to purchase tax u/s.7-A of the
1959 Act but, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Clarifications
dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 issued by the revenue till the
same were withdrawn prospectively by the Clarification dated D
28.01.2002 – Held: When the principles laid down by the
Constitutional Bench in Nandanam Construction Co. are applied
to the phraseology of Clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s.7-A of the 1959
Act, four eventualities are covered thereunder, with reference to the
treatment of goods in question viz., (i) when they are consumed in
manufacture of other goods for sale; or (ii) when they are consumed E
otherwise; or (iii) when they are used in manufacture of other goods
for sale; or (iv) when they are used otherwise – The bottles in
question have neither been consumed in manufacture of Beer/IMFL
nor they could be said to have been used in such manufacture of
Beer/IMFL, hence elements (i) and (iii) does not exist – The empty F
bottles are filled up with liquor but such filling up has not resulted
in the bottles themselves being used up and bottles have retained
their basic identity, hence the activity in question does not fall within
the ambit of element (ii) – Insofar as (iv) element ‘when they are
used otherwise’ is concerned, the process of bottling with the use of
bottles was the unalienable part of the complete chain of processes G
that the assessee was obliged to undertake for its business i.e.
manufacturing and selling the liquor – By this process, the bottles
*as corrected to the extent as per order dated 11/04/2022 in Miscellaneous Application
No. 608/2022 in Civil Appeal No. 7164/2013 by a two Judge Bench comprising of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Abhay S. Oka.
H
865
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A were used by the assessee in such a manner that they were no longer
available for sale in the form they were purchased from unregistered
dealers – That being the position, the bottles have indeed been ‘used
otherwise’ by the assessee – Therefore, the activity of assessee in
relation to the bottles in question is clearly covered by element (iv)
of Clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s.7-A of the Act and making it exigible
B
to purchase tax – As far as benefit of Clarifications dated 09.11.1989
and 27.12.2000 are concerned, the Constitution Bench in Ratan
Melting & Wire Industries held that no direction can be issued to
enforce a Clarification or Circular contrary to the declaration of
law by the Courts – Thus, the High Court after having found that
C purchase tax was leviable on the turnover in question u/s. 7-A of
the Act, could not have issued directions for benefit with reference
to the Clarifications/ Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000,
particularly when such Clarifications/ circulars do not stand in
conformity with the statutory provisions and its interpretation by
the Courts – Hence, the order of the High Court as regards the
D
operation and effect of Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989
and 27.12.2000, cannot be approved.
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Taxability of Cash
discount on price – The assessee is engaged in the business of
manufacture of Beer and IMFL and for the said purpose purchased
E empty bottles from unregistered dealers – The Assessing Officer
disallowed the exemption on cash discount allowed by the assessee
to Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited and levied tax
on the said cash discount – The assessee submitted that any cash or
other discount on the price of goods sold cannot be included in the
F turnover for the levy of tax – The High Court relying on the decision
in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. took the view that as per
Explanation 2(iii) to s.2(r) of the Act, cash or other discount on the
price of goods sold cannot be included in the turnover for the levy
of tax and accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee and against
the revenue – Held: The issue has rightly been decided by the High
G Court in favour of the assessee.
Words and Phrases – ‘Consume’, ‘use’, ‘manufacture’, ‘in’
and ‘otherwise’ – discussed.
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of pari materia – discussed.
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 867
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED

Partly allowing C.A. No.7164 of 2013 and dismissing C.A. A
No. 7165 of 2013 and C.A. No. 4416-4419 of 2014, the Court
HELD: 1. When the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench in Nandanam Construction Co. coupled with the approved
interpretation in Ganesh Prasad Dixit are read with the analysis
in M.K. Kandaswami and are applied to the amended Section 7-A B
of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 with which this
Court is concerned in present case, the end-product of synthesis
is that the expression “or otherwise” qualifies, and provides
alternative to, the action of “manufacture”; and therefore,
consumption of the goods in question for manufacture or
otherwise as also use of the goods in question for manufacture or C
otherwise are the acts/actions covered under clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act. [Para 34]
[921-F-G]
2. In other words, when the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Nandanam Construction Co. are applied to D
the phraseology of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of
the Tamil Nadu Act, four eventualities are covered thereunder,
with reference to the treatment of the goods in question (which
had been purchased by the dealer in the circumstances where
sales tax had not been paid at the time of their purchase), viz., (i) E
when they are consumed in manufacture of other goods for sale;
or (ii) when they are consumed otherwise; or (iii) when they are
used in manufacture of other goods for sale; or (iv) when they
are used otherwise. [Para 34.1][922-A-C]
3. It remains hardly a matter of doubt that so far the empty F
bottles are concerned, even after being filled with liquor, they
remain bottles only, retaining their original elements including
shape, size and character. They are not “consumed” at all; and
there arise no question of they being “consumed in the
manufacture”. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting
the submissions of assessee that the bottles in question have G
not been consumed in manufacture of other goods for sale. [Para
44][932-D-E]
4. In continuity with the above, this Court is also inclined
to accept the submission of the assessee that the empty bottles
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A have not even been “used” in manufacture. This is for the reason
that for operation and application of the phrase “uses in
manufacture”, it has to be shown that the bottles in question have
been deployed as a means of achieving the purpose of
manufacture. As noticed, the phrase “manufacture of other goods
for sale”, in the present case, refers to the goods manufactured
B
by the assessee, i.e., Beer/IMFL; and, in fact, use of the bottles
in question comes up in the activity of the assessee only after
manufacture of liquor (Beer/IMFL) has already been
accomplished by brewing or distillation. Needless to reiterate
that in relation to the activity of assessee, the action of bottling is
C a separate process and is undertaken only after the process of
manufacture by way of brewing or distillation is complete. Thus
understood, it is clear that the goods in question (empty bottles)
cannot be said to have been “used” in manufacture.
[Para 44.1][932-F-H]
D 5. For what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court
has no hesitation in concluding that the bottles in question have
neither been consumed in manufacture of Beer/IMFL nor they
could be said to have been used in such manufacture of Beer/
IMFL. Hence, elements (i) and (iii) pertaining to clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act do not exist in this case.
E [Para 45][933-A]
6. As already noticed, consumption requires the thing in
question being exhausted or ceasing to exist for being used up.
The bottles in question, even when used as containers of the
liquor manufactured by the assessee, had neither been exhausted
F nor had ceased to exist; they have rather continued to exist while
retaining their basic identity and character as bottles. Of course,
they (empty bottles) had been filled up with liquor but such filling
up has not resulted in the bottles themselves being used up.
Hence, the activity in question does not fall within the ambit of
G element (ii). However, the very same logic does not apply to
element (iv) because it cannot be said that the bottles in question
have not been “used otherwise”. [Para 49.1][936-E-F]
7. As noticed, the expression “use” is of wide amplitude
and it refers to the usage or engagement of an article for the
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 869
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED

accomplishment of a purpose irrespective of whether the article A
itself undergoes a visible change or not. The fact that the bottles
in question have indeed been used by the assessee in its overall
activity of manufacture and sale of liquor is clear from the fact
that the manufacture of liquor by the process of brewing or
distillation did not conclude the activity of the assessee.
B
Undoubtedly, for the sale of such manufactured liquor to
TASMAC, the assessee was required to put the same into the
bottles; and the sale by assessee could have taken place only
after such bottling of the liquor. The assessee has, indisputably,
undertaken this process of bottling by the use of the goods in
question, i.e., the empty bottles purchased from unregistered C
dealers. Hence, it is but apparent that the goods in question (empty
bottles) have been used by the assessee, and for that matter,
have been used for an activity closely connected and co-related
with the main activity of manufacture of liquor as also as necessary
ingredient of the end-purpose of sale of liquor. Significantly, after
D
such use for bottling, the goods in question (empty bottles) did
not remain available for sale in the form in which they were
purchased by the assessee. [Para 49.2][936-G-H; 937-A-B]
8. In other words, the process of bottling with the use of
bottles in question has been an unalienable part of the complete
chain of processes that the assessee was obliged to undertake E
for its business, i.e., manufacturing and selling the liquor. By this
process, the bottles in question were used by the assessee in
such a manner that they were no longer available for sale in the
form they were purchased from unregistered dealers. That being
the position, the bottles in question have indeed been “used F
otherwise” by the assessee. The assessee cannot avoid operation
of the words “or otherwise” so far use of the bottles is concerned
by merely establishing that they have not been consumed in
manufacture or otherwise and further that they have not been
used in manufacture. Even when these three elements viz.,
“consumed in manufacture”; “consumed otherwise”; and “used G
in manufacture” do not exist as regards the bottles in question in
the business activity of the assessee, it is but apparent the activity
of the assessee clearly entails the use of bottles for the purpose
of bottling and sale of liquor manufactured by it. This activity
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A clearly takes the bottles in question within the fourth element
i.e., “used otherwise”. [Para 49.3][937-C-F]
9. Hence, though the bottles in question have not been
“consumed otherwise”, they have indeed been “used otherwise”;
and therefore, the activity of assessee in relation to the bottles
B in question is clearly covered by element (iv) of clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act. [Para 49.4][937-G]
10. To summarise the discussion aforesaid and to put views
of this Court in a nutshell, the goods in question (empty bottles)
have not been consumed in the manufacture of other goods for
C sale nor they have been consumed otherwise because of having
retained their identity. They have also not been used in the
manufacture of other goods for sale because manufacture of Beer/
IMFL was complete without their use. However, they have been
used for bottling and when bottling remains an integral part of
the business activity of the assessee, i.e., of manufacturing the
D liquor by the process of brewing/distillation and then, selling the
manufactured liquor by putting the same in bottles, they have
been “used otherwise”. That being the position, use of the goods
in question for bottling takes the turnover of their purchase within
the net of Section 7-A of the Act. [Para 50][937-H; 938-A-B]
E 11. To put it more simply, if we read clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act sliced down to the elements
“uses in manufacture or otherwise”, it is clear that the goods in
question (empty bottles) have been used for bottling, which use,
even if not for manufacture, had been a use otherwise which has
F been closely connected with the business of the assessee and
whereby the bottles in question did not remain available for sale
in the form in which they were purchased. This is the plain and
clear operation of the dictum of Constitution Bench in the case
of Nandanam Construction Co.. Hence, applicability of Section 7-
A of the Act is complete and remains beyond the realm of doubt.
G [Para 50.1][938-C-D]
12. As noticed, the High Court in its impugned order dated
10.09.2004 did reach to the conclusion that purchase tax was

H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 871
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED

leviable on the purchase turnover of the empty bottles but found A
the assessee entitled to the benefit of Clarifications/Circulars
issued by the revenue on 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000. The revenue
has questioned this part of the order of the High Court. In order
to examine the rival contentions in this regard and the
correctness of proposition adopted by the High Court, this Court
B
may take note of the statutory provision in the Tamil Nadu Act
on the power of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue
clarification as also the particular Clarifications/Circulars relevant
to the present case. [Para 54][942-C-E]
13. In view of the pronouncement by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, there remains C
hardly any doubt on the principles that Clarifications/Circulars/
Instructions issued by the competent authority are binding on
the authorities under the respective statutes but so far as
declaration of law in regard to any particular statutory provision
is concerned, the view expressed in the binding decision of this D
Court or the High Court is to be given effect to; and no direction
can be issued to enforce a clarification or circular contrary to the
declaration of law by the Courts. [Para 58][948-H; 949-A-B]
14. In the aforesaid view of matter, the High Court, after
having found that purchase tax was leviable on the turnover in E
question under Section 7-A of the Act, could not have issued
directions for any benefit to the assessee with reference to the
Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000,
particularly when such Clarifications/Circulars do not stand in
conformity with the statutory provision and its interpretation by
the Courts. [Para 62][951-D-E] F

Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Nandanam
Construction Co. (1999) 115 STC 427; Burmah Shell
Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd., Belgaum
v. Belgaum Borough Municipality AIR 1963 SC 906 :
[1963] Suppl. SCR 216; Commissioner of Central G
Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries
(2008) 13 SCC 1 : [2008] 14 SCR 653 – followed.

H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v.
Administrative Officer: (2004) 1 SCC 755 : [2004] 1
SCR 470; The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami
and Ors. (1975) 36 STC 191; Ganesh Prasad Dixit v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh (1969)
24 STC 343; Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v.
B
M/s. Kiran Spinning Mills (1988) 2 SCC 348 : [1988]
2 SCR 1006; Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs, Gujarat v. Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. (2006)
1 SCC 777; Smt. Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay AIR
1957 SC 521 : [1957] SCR 721– relied on.
C Raj Sheel & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
(1989) 74 STC 379; Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals
(P) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 120 STC 493;
Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer and Anr. (2002) 125 STC 500;
D Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala (1998) 108 STC
598; Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Private Ltd.
v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1986) 63 STC 316;
Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical
Industries (2002) 126 STC 122; Neyveli Lignite
Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore
E and Anr. (2001) 124 STC 586; Hotel Balaji and Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1993) 88 STC 98;
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Mohan Meakin
Breweries Ltd and Anr. (2011) 13 SCC 588 : [2011] 14
SCR 98; Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Nadiad Nagar
F Palika and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 1 : [2000] 2 SCR 52;
HMM Limited and Anr. v. Administrator, Bangalore City
Corporation, Bangalore and Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 640 :
[1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 353; Punjab Aromatics v. State of
Kerala (2008) 11 SCC 482 : [2008] 7 SCR 235; Union
of India v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (2010) 11 SCC
G 745; Ganesh Trading Co., Karnal v. State of Haryana
and Anr. (1973) 32 STC 623; Kathiawar Industries Ltd.
v. Jaffrabad Municipality (1979) 4 SCC 56 : [1980] 1
SCR 243; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Ors. (1965) 16
H STC 563; Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi v. Trans
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 873
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED

Asian Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 604 : A
[2016] 3 SCR 337; Signode India Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Central Excise & Customs-II (2017) 4 SCC 613 :
[2017] 6 SCR 997; State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. India
Cements Limited and Anr. (2011) 13 SCC 247 : [2011]
7 SCR 395; H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. CCE 1997 (94)
B
ELT 3; Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Ashish
Bajpai 2007 (217) ELT 163; CST v. Pio Food Packers
(1980) Suppl. SCC 174 : [1980] 3 SCR 1271; CST v.
Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 264 : [1988]
3 SCR 248; S. Prakash Rao and Anr. v. Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 259; C
George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty Mysore
AIR 1967 SC 849; Western India Plywood Ltd. v. P.
Ashokan (1997) 7 SCC 638 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 180;
Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. State of
Tamil Nadu (2000) 120 STC 493; Kalyani Packaging
D
Industries v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 719 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 14 SCR 98 referred to Para 10.2
[2000] 2 SCR 52 referred to Para 10.2.1 E
[1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 353 referred to Para 10.2.1
[2008] 7 SCR 235 referred to Para 10.2.1
[1988] 2 SCR 1006 relied on Para 10.2.1
[1963] Suppl. SCR 216 followed Para 10.2.1 F
[1980] 1 SCR 243 referred to Para 10.2.1
[2016] 3 SCR 337 referred to Para 11.1
[2017] 6 SCR 997 referred to Para 11.1
[2011] 7 SCR 395 referred to Para 11.1 G
[2008] 14 SCR 653 followed Para 11.1
[1980] 3 SCR 1271 referred to Para 23
[1988] 3 SCR 248 referred to Para 23.3.1
[2004] 1 SCR 470 relied on Para 25 H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A [1957] SCR 721 relied on Para 48
[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 180 referred to Para 48.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7164
of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2004 of the High Court
B of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 25081 of 2002.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7165 of 2013, 4416-4419 of 2014.
Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., K. K. Mani,
Ms. T. Archana, Kumar Ajit Singh, Ms. A. Jaswanthi, Ms. Purbitaa
Mitra, K. V. Vijayakumar, Advs. for the appearing parties on 26-6-2020.
C
V. Krishnamurthy, AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR, Nupur
Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Jessica Bhardwaj,
K.K. Mani, Advs. for the appearing parties on 11-4-2022.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
D Preliminary and Brief Outline
1. The appeals in this batch, involving similar questions between
the same parties, have been considered together and are taken up for
disposal by this common judgment.
2. Civil Appeal Nos. 7164 of 2013 and 7165 of 2013, filed
E respectively by the revenue and the assessee, are directed against the
final judgement and order dated 10.09.2004, passed by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 25081 of 2002,
whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee
while holding, inter alia, that though the purchase turnover, with respect
to the purchase of empty bottles from unregistered dealers under bought
F
note, is exigible to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 19591 but, the assessee is entitled for the benefit
of Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 issued by the revenue
till the same were withdrawn prospectively by the Clarification dated
28.01.2002 and therefore, the revenue is not entitled to levy purchase
G tax for the said turnover of purchase of empty bottles for the assessment
year 1996-97.
2.1. The assessee has filed another set of appeals in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014 against the order of the High Court dated
05.12.2013, passed in Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 1667,1669, 1857 of
H 1
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Tamil Nadu Act’ or simply ‘the Act’.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 875
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

2008 and 13 of 2009, wherein the High Court has held that the assessee A
is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the
assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90 on the turnover of purchase of
empty bottles from the unregistered dealers while following its aforesaid
earlier order dated 10.09.2004.
3. Put in a nutshell, these matters involve the interpretation of B
Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, providing for levy of purchase tax
under certain circumstances, with root questions as to whether purchase
tax is leviable on the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased by
the assessee in the course of its business of manufacture and sale of
Beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor2 and as to the operation and effect
of the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 issued by the Special Commissioner C
and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai3 and dated 27.12.2000
issued by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Chennai4. On the sideways, a separate question is as to whether
cash discount on the price offered by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu
State Marketing Corporation Limited5 is taxable in view of Explanation D
2(iii) to Section 2(r) of the Act?
4. As noticed, the impugned order dated 05.12.2013 in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014 is essentially based on the previous order of the
High Court dated 10.09.2004 which is in challenge by the revenue as
also by the assessee in Civil Appeal Nos. 7164 of 2013 and 7165 of E
2013. Hence, we propose to deal with the cross-appeals against the
order dated 10.09.2004 in necessary details.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7164 and 7165 of 2013: Relevant
Background
5. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies F
Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture of Beer and
IMFL products on the strength of license issued under the Tamil Nadu
Indian Made Foreign Spirits (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 in its factory
located at No. 7, Selva Street, M.M. Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai
– 600 087. It is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer,
G
Porur Assessment Circle.

2
‘IMFL’ for short.
3
‘SCCT’ for short
4
‘PCCT’ for short
5
‘TASMAC’ for short H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 5.1. The assessee, for the purpose of the said business of
manufacture of Beer and IMFL, purchased empty bottles from
unregistered dealers situated outside the State as well as from non-dealers
for the bottling of Beer and IMFL. It has been the case of the assessee
that the said bottles were recycled after use by the consumers and were
re-filled with Beer and IMFL. The cost of bottles was Rs. 35.69 per
B
case as against the manufacturing cost of Beer of Rs. 109.93 per case,
taking the cost of bottles to 32% of the manufacturing cost. With respect
to IMFL, the cost of bottles was Rs. 60.40 per case as against the
manufacturing cost of Rs. 217.06 per case, which had been 28% of the
manufacturing cost. According to the assessee, these bottles purchased
C against bought notes were the bottles which were already used, filled
and sold for a price and continued to be available for re-use and further
trading.
5.2. It had also been the case of assessee that as per Rule 29 of
the Tamil Nadu Brewery Rules,1983, the manufacturer had the option
D of filling the Beer either in bottles or casks or even kegs; that the entire
Beer and IMFL manufactured by assessee was sold only to TASMAC,
who had the exclusive privilege of supplying the liquor by wholesale for
the entire State of Tamil Nadu. The assessee had also been offering
cash discount for early settlement of bills by TASMAC.
E 6. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee was assessed
on the files of the revenue on a total turnover of Rs. 2,52,33,32,932/- and
Rs. 2,49,65,22,854/- respectively by the assessment order dated
21.10.1998. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer6, by a notice dated
30.04.1999, proposed to levy purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act
on the purchase of empty bottles from unregistered dealers under bought
F note through salesman permits, on a sum of Rs. 24,78,20,465/- at the
rate of 16% with surcharge, additional surcharge as also additional tax
at the rate of 2.50%.
6.1. In his notice dated 30.04.1999, the AO, inter alia, observed
that addition of sub-section (7) to Section 3 with effect from 22.05.1984
G specifically treats the containers or packing materials as part of the goods
sold or purchased; that there was no doubt that the bottles lost their
identity as bottles, which were liable to tax at 10% before filling and they
became integral part of the finished goods after filling and attracted
liability under the charging Section 3(7) of the Act; and when the bottles
6
H Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the AO’
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 877
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

became part of the goods, liability under Section 7-A of the Act was A
definite because, as a part of finished goods used in manufacture, it had
not suffered the tax earlier. The AO also observed that in view of decision
of this Court in Raj Sheel & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.:
(1989) 74 STC 379, though the empty bottles were used as packing
material and merged with the consideration of the main product, there
B
was no separate sale of these empty bottles purchased from unregistered
dealers and hence, such purchase of empty bottles was liable to tax
under Section 7-A of the Act, as there was no subsequent taxable event
on the sale of the packaging material.
6.2. In response to the said notice dated 30.04.1999, the assessee
submitted its objections on 27.09.1999 to the effect that Section 7-A of C
the Act for levy of purchase tax was not attracted on the purchase of
empty bottles for packing Beer and IMFL and, in any event, the proposed
levy of purchase tax was illegal and unjustified in view of the Clarification
dated 09.11.1989 issued by the SCCT, that was binding on the revenue
as per Section 28-A of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the D
proceedings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai7
with respect to the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 holding that
imposition of purchase tax on the purchase of empty bottles was illegal
and unjustified. The mainstay of the assessee had been that the empty
bottles purchased by it were neither consumed nor used in the
manufacture of other goods; that the manufacture of Beer or IMFL was E
complete much prior to its bottling; that the bottling of Beer or IMFL did
not complete the process of manufacture; and that it was also a clear
trade practice to sell Beer even in barrels, which itself showed that
manufacture of Beer had nothing to do with its subsequent bottling.
6.3. The PCCT, before passing final orders on the aforesaid notice F
dated 30.04.1999 by the AO, issued his Clarification dated 27.12.2000
that purchase of empty bottles could not be made liable to be charged
under Section 7-A of the Act during the assessment years 1991-92,1993-
94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 as the Clarification dated 09.11.1989 was in
force at the relevant time. G
6.4. However, the PCCT later on re-examined the issue in light of
the decision of Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai8 in the
case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. State of Tamil
7
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’
8
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Nadu: reported in (2000) 120 STC 493, and stated by his Clarification
dated 28.01.2002, in modification of the earlier Clarifications, that the
assessee was liable to tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the purchase
of empty bottles from unregistered dealers that were used for packing
of Beer/IMFL manufactured by it.
B 6.5. Apart from the above, the AO, by his notice dated 05.02.2002,
proposed to revise the earlier assessment for the assessment year
1996-97 by disallowing the exemption on cash discount allowed by the
assessee to TASMAC and to levy tax on the said cash discount, with
surcharge and additional surcharge @ 15% and 5% respectively as also
the additional sales tax. In response to this notice dated 05.02.2002, the
C assessee, by its letter dated 18.03.2002, submitted that any cash or other
discount on the price allowed in respect of any sale and any amount
refunded in respect of articles returned by customers is not to be included
in the turnover. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on
Explanation 2(iii) to Section 2(r) of the Act.
D 6.6. After examining the objections of the assessee, the AO, by
his order dated 27.03.2002, confirmed the proposal of levying purchase
tax @ 16% under Section 7-A of the Act on the bottles purchased from
unregistered dealers with surcharge and additional surcharge @ 15%
and 5% respectively as also additional sales tax @ 2.5% and penalty,
E essentially on the grounds that empty bottles were purchased from
unregistered dealers; that they had been used as raw materials in
manufacture of Beer and IMFL products; and that they had not been
sold separately. The AO, in support of his conclusion, relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Appollo Saline
Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
F and Anr.: (2002) 125 STC 500, which relied upon the decision of this
Court in Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala: (1998) 108 STC 598.
6.7. Further, while overruling the objections in respect of levy of
tax on cash discount, the AO confirmed the proposal for disallowing the
cash discount allowed to TASMAC while observing that discount was
G only for early settlement of bills of the Distilleries that was akin to
discounting the bills with Banks/Financial Institutions; and though the
nomenclature adopted was ‘cash discount’, it was nothing but a
commission availed for easy payments which did not fall within the
purview of discount and was not deductible.
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 879
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

7. Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the AO, the assessee A
preferred O.P. No.476 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking quashing of
the order dated 27.03.2002 and directions to the AO to give effect to the
Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12 .2000.
7.1. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26.06.2002, while dismissing
O.P. No. 476 of 2002, observed that when the latest Clarification dated B
28.01.2002 was issued on the basis of view taken by the Tribunal and
confirmed by the High Court, the assessee was not entitled to question
the proceedings of AO on the basis of the Clarifications issued earlier. It
was also observed that the rule applicable for tax on the bottles could be
extended to casks and kegs too and, by exclusion of casks and kegs, the
tax applicable on bottles alone cannot be set aside or withdrawn. The C
Tribunal further observed that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court
in Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Private Ltd. v. The State of
Tamil Nadu: (1986) 63 STC 316 was not applicable as the same was
rendered prior to the amendment of Section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act by the
Tamil Nadu Act No. 78 of 1986 effective from 01.01.1987; and with D
insertion of the word “use” by way of amendment, the meaning conveyed
by the said section was different from the meaning conveyed earlier.
Thus, while proceeding in tune with the Clarification dated 28.01.2002,
the Tribunal refused to interfere with the order dated 27.03.2002.
8. Being aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order dated 26.06.2002, the E
assessee filed the writ petition, being W.P. No. 25081 of 2002, before
Madras High Court, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus for
quashing the proceedings in question while directing the AO to pass
fresh orders giving effect to the Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989
and 27.12.2000. The writ petition so filed by the assessee has been
considered and disposed of by the High Court by its impugned order F
dated 10.09.2004.
8.1. The following three questions were considered by the High
Court in its impugned order dated 10.09.2004: -
“(i) Whether the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased G
by the petitioner Company, who are engaged in the business of
manufacturing Beer and IMFL products, from unregistered dealers
for bottling Beer and IMFL manufactured by them, through the
bought note to the extent of Rs. 24,78,20,465.00 is attracted for
purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales
Tax Act (for brevity “the Act”)?; H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) Whether purchase tax is leviable on the purchase turnover of
the empty bottles purchased by the petitioner Company to the
extent of Rs. 24,78,20,465.00, under Section 7-A of the Act, in
spite of the clarifications dated 9.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 issued
in favour of the petitioner Company by the Special Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, in view of Section 28A of the
B
Act?; and
(iii) Whether cash discount on the price offered by the petitioner
Company to the TASMAC is taxable in view of explanation 2(iii)
to Section 2(r) of the Act?”
C 8.2. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and
exhaustively dealing with the case law on the subject, the High Court, by
applying the law laid down by this Court in Premier Breweries (supra)
and Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Nandanam
Construction Co.: (1999) 115 STC 427; and with reference to the
amended Section 7-A of the Act and the object of this provision as
D explained by this Court in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K.
Kandaswami and Ors.: (1975) 36 STC 191 i.e., to plug the leakage
and prevent evasion of tax with respect to purchase of goods, rejected
the contention of assessee that the turnover for the purchase of empty
bottles did not attract levy of purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act.
E The High Court held as follows:-
“7.6. Hence, applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in (i)
PREMIER BREWERIES v. STATE OF KERALA, [1998] 108
STC 598; and (ii) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(INTELLIGENCE) v. NANDANAM CONSTRUCTION CO.,
F [1999] 115 STC 427, which was followed by this Court in
APPOLLO SALINE PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD., v.
DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER,
[2002] 125 STC 500, and keeping in mind the object of Section 7-
A of the Act, as amended, as observed in STATE OF TAMIL
NADU v. M.K. KANDASWAMI & OTHERS, [1975] 36 STC
G 191, viz., to plug the leakage and prevent evasion of tax with
respect to purchase of empty bottles purchased from unregistered
dealers under the bought note, we reject the contention of Mr.
C.Natarjan that the purchase turnover for the purchase of empty
bottles from unregistered dealers under the bought note is not
H attracted for levy of purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act.”
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 881
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

8.3. However, with respect to the second question, the High Court, A
inter alia, observed that the Clarification dated 27.12.2000 gained
statutory force in view of Section 28-A of the Act, which was inserted
by the amendment with effect from 06.11.1997. Further, while relying
on various decisions including that of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren
B
Chemical Industries : (2002) 126 STC 122, it was also observed
that even though the Clarification dated 09.11.1989 was executive in
nature, the same was binding on the authorities till the concessions given
to the assessee under the Clarification were withdrawn prospectively
with effect from 28.01.2002; and the revenue could not refuse the benefit
of the Clarifications dated 9.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 in respect of C
purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the assessment year
1996-97.
The High Court answered this question in favour of the assessee
as follows:-
“8.6.10. It is, therefore, clear that even though the clarification D
dated 9.11.1989 is executive in nature, the same is binding on the
authorities till the concessions given to the petitioner under the
clarification were withdrawn, which could be done only
prospectively, viz., in the instance case, with effect from 28.1.2002,
and the revenue could not refuse the benefit of the clarifications E
dated 9.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 in respect of levy of purchase
tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the impugned assessment
year 1996-97. 8.7. For all these reasons, we are convinced that
even though the purchase turnover with respect to the purchase
of empty bottles from the unregistered dealers under bought note
can be charged for purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act, F
the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the clarifications dated
9.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 till the same is withdrawn prospectively
by the clarification dated 28.1.2002 and therefore, the impugned
levy of purchase tax on the purchase turnover for the purchase of
empty bottles from unregistered dealers under Section 7-A of the G
Act is illegal.”
8.4. Lastly, with respect to the third question, the High Court,
while relying on various decisions including that of this Court in Neyveli
Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore and
Anr.: (2001) 124 STC 586, took the view that as per Explanation H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 2(iii) to Section 2(r) of the Act, cash or other discount on the price of
goods sold cannot be included in the turnover for the levy of tax.
Accordingly, this question was also answered in favour of the assessee
and against the revenue as follows:-
“9.4. In NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD. v. C.T.O.,
B [2001] 124 STC 586, it was held that it is that sale consideration,
whether in cash or otherwise, which is receivable in respect of
sales made by the dealer which can possibly form part of the
turnover of a dealer.
9.5. From the law as enunciated from the decisions referred supra,
C we are convinced that in view of explanation 2(iii) to Section 2(r)
of the Act, the cash or other discount on the price of goods sold
cannot be included in the turnover for levy of tax.”
8.5. Therefore, the High Court, particularly in view of its answers
to question Nos. (ii) and (iii) as above, allowed the writ petition filed by
D the assessee.
9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2004 so passed by
the High Court in W.P. 25081 of 2002, the revenue has filed the appeal
by special leave, being Civil Appeal No. 7164 of 2013 questioning the
grant of relief to the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has also
E filed the appeal by special leave, being Civil Appeal No. 7165 of 2013,
against this very order insofar as the High Court has decided the principal
question relating to the applicability of Section 7-A of the Act against it.
Rival Submissions
The Assessee
F
10. As regards the question as to whether the purchase turnover
of empty bottles purchased from unregistered dealers is exigible to
purchase tax, the learned senior counsel for the assessee has submitted
that the question of levy of purchase tax on this purchase turnover does
not arise while making elaborate reference to the object and scheme of
G Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act; to the process of bottling of Beer/
IMLF after the same had been manufactured; and to the fact that the
sale of liquor with bottles had only been to TASMAC within the State of
Tamil Nadu with bottles being also taxed on such sales.
10.1 The learned senior counsel has referred to the history of
H insertion of Section 7-A to the Tamil Nadu Act w.e.f. 27.11.1969 and its
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 883
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

various amendments from time to time with the submissions that the A
said provision was inserted with the main object to plug the leakage and
to prevent evasion of tax. Further, with reference to the provisions
contained in Section 7-A as applicable at the relevant time and sub-
sections (1), (7) and (8) of Section 3 of the Act, the learned senior counsel
has contended that the bottles were not disposed of “in any manner
B
other than by way of sale in the State” but these were disposed of only
by way of sale to TASMAC within the State of Tamil Nadu itself on
payment of sales tax and hence, clause (b) of Section 7-A(1) does not
apply. In support of these contentions, the learned senior counsel has
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and
Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.: (1993) 88 STC 98, more C
particularly on the observations occurring in a few paragraphs of said
decision in relation to the provisions contained in the Haryana General
Sales Tax Act, 1973.9
10.1.1. The learned senior counsel has also contended that the
revenue itself had accepted such factual and legal decision and has issued D
Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 realising that
since the sale value of bottles is subject to tax at the time of sale of the
contents, it has no liability to tax under Section 7-A of the Act.
10.2. Taking up clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of
the Act, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the language used E
in the said clause (a) has been ‘consumes or uses such goods in the
manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise’. Thus, according
to the learned counsel, what is to be seen is whether bottles were
consumed or used in the manufacture of liquor; and as per the said
language used in clause (a), it cannot apply to the present case either
textually or contextually because Beer/IMFL was fully manufactured F
and such fully manufactured liquor was transferred to the bottling section;
that bottles have got their own identity and they remained bottles at all
stages, i.e., before being used for filling the liquor, after being used for
this purpose, after liquor was consumed by the consumers, and even
when these were cleaned and re-used by the assessee; and that the G
character and identity of bottles as bottles was never lost, they were
capable of repeated use, and the assessee was cleaning and re-using
such bottles. The learned senior counsel has referred to the Tamil Nadu
Brewery Rules, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Indian Made Foreign Spirits
9
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Haryana Act’. H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 to submit that it is manufactured Beer/IMFL,
which is filled in bottles in a separate bottling section and, so far as the
manufacture of Beer/IMFL is concerned, the same had already taken
place before bottling and hence, bottles are not ‘consumed or used in
the manufacture’ of liquor for sale. The learned senior counsel has also
referred to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
B
and Ors. v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. and Anr.: (2011) 13
SCC 588 to submit and re-emphasize that process of bottling commences
only after completion of manufacturing of Beer when bulk Beer is
transferred from the brewery for bottling; and manufacturing of liquor
and putting manufactured commodity into bottles being two different
C processes, it cannot be said that the bottles have been consumed or used
in manufacture of other goods.
10.2.1. The learned senior counsel has emphatically contended
that in the process of manufacture, conversion of one commodity into a
different commodity remains the essential element and if the identity of
D goods is not changed with irreversible process, manufacture would not
be deemed to have taken place. In this regard, the learned counsel has
referred to various decisions including those in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
v. Nadiad Nagar Palika and Anr.: (2000) 3 SCC 1, HMM Limited
and Anr. v. Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore
and Anr.: (1989) 4 SCC 640, Punjab Aromatics v. State of Kerala:
E (2008) 11 SCC 482, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. M/s.
Kiran Spinning Mills: (1988) 2 SCC 348, Commissioner of Central
Excise & Customs, Gujarat v. Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. : (2006)
1 SCC 777, Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.: (2010)
11 SCC 745, Ganesh Trading Co., Karnal v. State of Haryana and
F Anr.: (1973) 32 STC 623, Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing
Co. of India Ltd., Belgaum v. Belgaum Borough Municipality: AIR
1963 SC 906, and Kathiawar Industries Ltd. v. Jaffrabad
Municipality: (1979) 4 SCC 56.
10.2.2. Again, with reference to the decision in Hotel Balaji
G (supra), the learned senior counsel would contend that the provisions as
contained in the Haryana Act carried the same language i.e., ‘uses them
in the State in the manufacture of goods’; and per the enunciation in
the said decision, the provision for levy of purchase tax would apply only
to those cases where the purchased goods ‘cease to exist as such
goods for the reason that they are consumed in manufacture of
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 885
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

different commodities’ or the purchased goods ‘are put to an end by A
their consumption in the manufacture of other goods’; and no such
event having taken place where the goods in question (the bottles) had
ceased to exist or had been put to an end by consumption in the
manufacture of other goods, the question of levy of purchase tax does
not arise.
B
10.2.3. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that during
the period involved in the present case, i.e., from 01.04.1996 to
31.03.1997, the requirement for applicability of clause (a) of Section 7-
A(1) was stated in the manner that dealer ‘consumes or uses such
goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise’; and
C
the scope of clause (a) was subsequently widened w.e.f. 06.11.1997
when new clause (a) was substituted by the Tamil Nadu General Sales
Tax (Sixth Amendment) Act 1997 to read as ‘consumes or uses such
goods in or for the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise’
but, during the period relevant for the present case, the expression “or
for” was not there in the statute. According to the learned counsel, when D
Beer/IMFL had already been manufactured before bottling, the bottles
were neither consumed nor used in manufacture of the contents; and
nothing turns upon the expressions “consumes” or “uses” inasmuch as
in both the situations, such consumption or use was required to be ‘in
the manufacture of other goods’, which is not the case here.
E
10.3. As regards the decisions referred to in the impugned orders,
the learned senior counsel for the assessee has submitted that the said
decisions do not operate against the contentions of the assessee.
10.3.1. The learned senior counsel would submit that in the case
of M. K. Kandaswami (supra), this Court had only analysed the scheme F
of Section 7-A of the Act, as then existing, and had pointed out that the
said provision was itself a charging provision. As regards the decision in
the case of Nandanam Construction Co. (supra), the learned counsel
would contend that therein, the respondent was purchasing goods such
as sand and bricks which were consumed in the construction of flats
and hence, this Court held that when the goods ceased to exist in the G
original form or ceased to be available in the State for sale or purchase,
the purchasing dealer of such goods would be liable to tax, if the seller is
not or cannot be taxed. The decision in Premium Breweries (supra),
has been distinguished by the learned counsel with the submissions that
therein, contention of the dealer was that the cardboard cartons, in which H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A the liquor bottles were packed, may not be taxed at the higher rate
applicable to the sale of liquor because cardboard cartons were sold
separately but such a contention was not accepted by this Court. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, for different fact situation and different
question being involved, the said decision has no application to the present
case.
B
10.3.2. As regards the decision of Madras High Court in the case
of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra), the learned senior counsel
has strenuously argued that the said decision is not correct in law and is
even otherwise distinguishable. The learned counsel has pointed out that
the goods in question in the said decision were the bottles carrying
C ‘intravenous fluid’10 which had different role in the process of
manufacture of I.V. fluid as also in the peculiar process of intravenous
route of administration, where the fluid is given from a bag connected to
a thin tube inserted into the veins; and it is important to keep a check on
the rate of flow and delivery by continuous monitoring. The learned
D counsel would submit that by its very nature, where the manufacture of
I.V. fluid requires its particular packing, the said packing does not retain
its identity and becomes a part of the composite unit called I.V. fluid;
that packing of I.V. fluid in bottle is one time packing and after I.V. fluid
is taken out, the packing becomes useless and is discarded; and that in
the said decision itself, the entire I.V. fluid contained in bottle was
E considered to be a composite unit, which is not the case in relation to the
bottles used as container of Beer/IMFL.
The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the
phraseology considered in the matter of Appollo Saline
Pharmaceuticals (supra) was ‘in or for the manufacture’, which was
F the position obtainable after the amendment of Section 7-A of the Act
w.e.f. 06.11.1997 whereby, the expression “or for” was inserted in clause
(a) thereof but, that was not the position during the period involved in the
present case. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the said
matter, the High Court did not even consider the relevant decisions of
G this Court wherein the relevant expressions have been considered and
interpreted by this Court including that in the case of Hotel Balaji (supra)
wherein, according to the learned counsel, this Court had considered the
provisions of Haryana Act which are in pari materia with the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Act in relation to the levy of purchase tax. The learned
10
H ‘I.V. fluid’ for short
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 887
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

counsel has further submitted that in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals A
(supra), reference was only made to decision of this Court in the case of
J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer,
Kanpur and Ors.: (1965) 16 STC 563 though the issue involved in the
said matter was completely different and related to categories of goods
to be included in the registration certificate which has no co-relation
B
with levy of purchase tax, particularly in view of the language used in
Section 7-A(1) (a) of the Act.
11. As regards the Clarifications/Circulars, the learned senior
counsel has referred to the contents of the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989
and 27.12.2000 and has made the submissions that in the assessee’s
C
own case, after examining the relevant facts and legal position, the revenue
had specifically clarified that since the sale value of bottles is subject to
tax at the time of sale of the contents, it had no liability to tax under
Section 7-A of the Act; and such clarifications remain binding on the
revenue, as rightly held by the High Court.
11.1. Further, with reference to the decisions of this Court in the D
cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi v. Trans Asian Shipping
Services (P) Ltd.: (2016) 8 SCC 604, Signode India Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs-II: (2017) 4 SCC 613,
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. India Cements Limited and Anr.:
(2011) 13 SCC 247 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. E
Ratan Melting & Wire Industries: (2008) 13 SCC 1, the learned
senior counsel has submitted that the law remains settled that the Circular
granting benefit to the assessee is binding on the department. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, the High Court has rightly applied the
principles of such decisions while holding that the benefit of Clarifications
dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 cannot be denied to the assessee. F

11.2. While making reference to the Clarification dated 28.01.2002,
which was issued after the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Appollo
Saline Pharmaceuticals, the learned senior counsel has contended that
therein, the earlier Clarification dated 27.12.2000, clarifying that in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, no purchase tax was payable G
under Section 7-A of the Act, was neither withdrawn nor cancelled and
on the other hand, the expression used in the new Clarification, of
modification, makes it clear that the new one was made effective only
prospectively and hence, cannot apply for the period in question. In this
regard too, the learned senior counsel has referred to and relied upon H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A various decisions including those in H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. CCE:
1997 (94) ELT 3 and Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Ashish
Bajpai: 2007 (217) ELT 163.
The revenue
12. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
B revenue has countered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee
while again making elaborate reference to the object and scheme of
Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act as also its interpretation and application
in various decisions.
12.1. It has been argued on behalf of the revenue that the
C amendment to Section 7-A of the Act and addition of the words “or
uses” in clause (a) thereof had broaden the scope of this provision as
also the jurisdiction of assessing authorities to levy purchase tax on any
commodity, which had not suffered tax earlier and which has been used
in the process of manufacturing any good to be sold. Therefore, the
D assessee is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act
because the bottles purchased from unregistered dealers were not taxed
at the purchase point and charging of such purchase tax does not amount
to double taxation.
12.2. The learned AAG has referred to the decision in M.K.
E Kandaswami (supra) to submit that therein, this Court has made it clear
that Section 7-A of the Act is a charging section and has explained that
Section 7-A of the Act deals with “taxable goods”, that is, the kind of
goods, the sale of which by a particular person or dealer may not be
taxable in the hands of seller but purchase of the same by a dealer in the
course of his business may subsequently become taxable. Thus, Section
F 7-A of the Act creates a liability against a dealer on his purchase turnover
of goods, the sale or purchase of which though generally liable to tax
under the Act, have not suffered tax and which, after the purchase,
have been dealt by him in any of the modes indicated in Section 7-A(1).
The learned AAG has further argued, with reference to the decision in
G Premier Breweries (supra), that the calculation of taxable turnover
cannot be accomplished without taking into consideration the purchase
tax on the goods purchased; and this Court has held that the packed
goods have to be seen as one whole for the purpose of calculating the
turnover of the goods.

H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 889
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

12.3. While relying on the decision of the High Court in Appollo A
Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra), the learned AAG has pointed out that
therein, the Court has held that the turnover of bottles would be part of
the turnover of the I.V. fluid because the bottles were not sold individually
but as a composite unit of I.V. fluid packed in bottles. It has been contended
that on similar lines and analogy, packaging of Beer/IMFL in glass bottles
B
has to be seen as an inseparable composite unit, particularly when the
containers are needed to make the goods marketable. Reference has
also been made to the decision of this Court in J.K. Cotton (supra)
wherein, it was held that the expression “in the manufacture of goods”
in sub-section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act should encompass
the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials C
into finished goods. It has also been contended that levy of sales tax on
the bottles sold with liquor has no bearing on the question of levy of
purchase tax because such sales tax on bottles was leviable even if the
bottles were purchased from registered dealers or in any other manner
after payment of tax.
D
12.4. Further, while placing reliance on the Tamil Nadu Indian
Made Foreign Spirits (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 the learned AAG has
submitted that the use of bottle is imperative in the manufacture of Beer/
IMFL as per the rules and guidelines because the product needs resting
and proper storing before it is fit to be sold. In regard to Beer bottle,
several of its unique characteristics have been recounted on behalf of E
revenue to submit that the same would identify it only as Beer bottle and
nothing else, for example, (i) the thickness of the glass used in the Beer
bottle; (ii) the colour of the glass of the bottle, which is a quality attached
to specific brands; (iii) the grooves on the neck of the bottle, which are
made only for an aluminium cap and not for any other covering, thereby F
making the bottle fit only for refilling of Beer; and (iv) the length, width,
breadth, etc. of the bottle, which is specific to every Beer brand.
12.5. The learned AAG for revenue has further relied upon the
interpretation of Section 6-A(ii)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales
Tax Act, 195711 by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of G
Nandanam Construction Co. (supra) with the submissions that the
said provision has been in pari materia with Section 7-A(1)(a) of the
Tamil Nadu Act and this Court held that, when the goods cease to exist
in the original form or cease to be available in the State for sale or
11
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Andhra Pradesh Act’. H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A purchase, the purchasing dealer of such goods is liable to tax if the seller
is not or cannot be taxed. The learned AAG has further relied upon the
interpretation and application of Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh General
Sales Tax Act, 195912 by this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Dixit
v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh: (1969) 24 STC
343 with the submissions that the said provision has also been in pari
B
materia with Section 7-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act and this Court
held that the assessees were registered as dealers and when they had
purchased taxable building materials in the course of their business for
manufacturing goods for sale, purchase tax was payable by them.
13. As regards the questions relating to the Clarifications/Circulars,
C the learned AAG has submitted that Section 28-A of the Act empowering
the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue clarifications came
into effect from 06.11.1997 and hence, during the relevant assessment
year i.e. 1996-97, there was no statutory provision in the Act empowering
the Commissioner to issue the clarification. Thus, according to the learned
D AAG, the earlier Clarification dated 09.11.1989 was reduced to a mere
administrative circular which had no binding force on a Quasi-judicial
Authority or a Court of Law and as a consequence, the Clarification
dated 27.12.2000, which was issued in continuity with the earlier
Clarification dated 09.11.1989, cannot be made applicable for the
assessment year 1996-97.
E
13.1. The learned AAG has also relied upon the Constitution Bench
decision in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra) with the submission
that while dealing with any matter, the Courts can declare law, fill any
gaps in legislation or give an interpretation to an already existing law;
and the law so declared remains binding on all. Insofar as this matter is
F concerned, according to the learned AAG, the law came to be declared
by this Court in Premier Breweries (supra) that the packed goods have
to be seen as one whole for the purpose of calculating the turnover; and
on similar lines, in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra), the High
Court held that an assessee paying purchase tax will not suffer any
G additional burden because any other manufacturer who had bought the
bottles from registered dealers would also be including their cost in the
turnover of final goods.
13.2. According to the learned AAG, a natural development of the
decisions by the Courts had been that the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989
12
H Hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Madhya Pradesh Act’.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 891
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

and 27.11.2000 became contrary to the law declared; and it had been in A
this background that the Clarification dated 28.01.2002 came to be issued.
The learned AAG would submit that the interpretation given by the High
Court of Madras in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra), which is
in line with the law declared by this Court in Premier Breweries (supra),
gave clarity to the application of Section 7-A of the Act and hence, to
B
give effect to the real meaning of Section 7-A of the Act, the Clarification
dated 28.01.2002 ought to be considered applicable because the law as
declared would apply across the board and not only prospectively.
14. We may notice another ground taken by the revenue in the
petition seeking leave to appeal that the High Court has erred in holding
that the so-called ‘cash discount’ falls under the ambit of Explanation C
(2)(iii) of Section 2(r) of the Act and therefore, exemption is to be allowed
thereupon.
The Points for Determination
15. In comprehension of what has been noticed hereinabove, the D
principal point calling for determination in these appeals is as to whether
purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act is leviable on the purchase
turnover of empty bottles purchased by the assessee in the course of its
business of manufacture and sale of Beer and IMFL. The second point,
co-related with the principal one, is on the operation and effect of the
Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989, 27.12.2000 and 28.01.2002 as E
issued by the department. Another point arising out of the impugned
order dated 10.09.2004 is as to whether cash discount on the price offered
by the assessee to the TASMAC is taxable in view of Explanation 2(iii)
to Section 2(r) of the Act?
The Principal Point: Purchase Tax under S. 7-A of the Act F
over the Turnover in Question
16. Taking up the principal point for determination, we may usefully
put in a nutshell the major aspects of the rival contentions. It is asserted
on behalf of the assessee that purchase tax on the turnover in question is
not leviable for two main reasons: One, that the bottles in question had G
not been consumed or used in the manufacture of liquor and they were
only used as containers in which already manufactured liquor was bottled
for carrying and sale; and secondly, the sale value of bottles has been
subjected to tax at the time of sale of its contents and therefore, there
could arise no question of levy of purchase tax on these very bottles,
H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A which are meant for repeated use. Per contra, it is contended on behalf
of the revenue that use of bottles is imperative in the manufacture of
Beer/IMFL and their packaging in glass bottles has to be seen as an
inseparable composite unit; and that levy of sales tax on the bottles sold
with liquor has no bearing on the question at hand because such sales
tax on bottles was leviable even if the bottles were purchased after
B
payment of tax.
Statutory Provisions
17. Having regard to the subject-matter and the questions involved,
appropriate it would be to take note of the relevant statutory provisions
C in the Tamil Nadu Act.
17.1. Sub-sections (1), (7) and (8) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Act, being the principal charging provision for levy of sales tax, read at
the relevant time as under:-
“3. Levy of taxes on sales or purchases of goods
D
(1) Every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-
resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year exceeds three
lakhs of rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident
dealer, whatever be his turnover for the year, shall pay a tax for
each year in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
E
*** *** ***
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (2A),
(2B) or (3) but subject to sub-sections (1) and (8), where goods
are sold or purchased together with the containers or packing
materials the turnover of such goods shall include the price, cost
F
or value of such containers or packing materials, and the packing
charges, whether such price, cost or value or packing charges,
are charged separately or not, and tax shall be levied thereon at
the rate applicable to the goods contained or packed as if such
containers or packing materials were the parts of the goods sold
G or purchased.
(8) Where the sale or purchase of goods contained in any container
or packed in any packing material is exempt from tax at the hands
of the dealer, then the price, cost or value of such container or
packing material and the charges for packing forming part of the
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 893
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

turnover of the goods under sub-section (7) shall not be liable to A
tax.
Explanation: For the purposes of sub-sections (7) and (8),
“containers” includes gunny bags, tins, bottles or any other
containers.”
17.2. As noticed, Section 7-A was inserted in the Tamil Nadu B
Act with effect from 27.11.1969. This provision has undergone several
amendments from time to time but, for the present purpose, its sub-
section (1), as examined by this Court in the judgment dated 15.07.1975
in the case of M.K. Kandaswami (supra) and then, as applicable to the
present case pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97, may be noticed. C
17.2.1. The relevant part of the provision contained in Section 7-
A (1) of the Act, as interpreted in the case of M.K. Kandaswami (supra),
was as under (at p. 195 of STC):-
“Section 7-A. Levy of purchase tax:
D
(1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases
from a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods (the
sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in
circumstances in which no tax is payable under sections 3, 4 or 5,
as the case may be, and either,—
E
(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods
for sale or otherwise; or
(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way
of sale in the State; or
(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a F
direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade
or commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover relating to the purchase
aforesaid at the rate mentioned in sections 3, 4 or 5 as the case
may be whatever be the quantum of such turnover in a year:
Provided that a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a G
non-resident dealer) purchasing goods (the sale of which is liable
to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3) shall not be liable to pay
tax under this sub-section, if his total turnover for a year is less
than twenty-five thousand rupees.
*** *** ***” H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 17.2.2. A few significant amendments were made to the provision
aforesaid by Tamil Nadu Act No. 78 of 1986 with effect from 01.01.1987
whereby, amongst other changes, the dimensions of its applicability were
modified in the principal part and then, a significant change was made in
clause (a) where, after the word “consumes”, the words “or uses” were
inserted. Then, some further amendments were made to this provision
B
by Tamil Nadu Act No. 25 of 1993 with effect from 12.03.1993. With
such amendments and modifications, Section 7-A (1) of the Act, as
applicable to the present case, has been as under:-
“Section 7-A. Levy of purchase tax:
C (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3, every
dealer who in the course of his business purchases from a
registered dealer or from any other person, any goods, (the sale
or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances
in which no tax is payable under sections 3 or 4, as the case may
be, not being a circumstance in which goods liable to tax under
D sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4, were purchased at a
point other than the taxable point specified in the First or the Second
Schedule and either,
(a) consumes or uses such goods in the manufacture of
other goods for sale or otherwise; or
E
(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by
way of sale in the State; or
(c) despatches or carries them to a place outside the State
except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-
F State trade or commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover relating to
the purchase as aforesaid at the rate mentioned in sections 3 or 4,
as the case may be.”
17.2.3. Another aspect of amendment to the provision aforesaid
by Tamil Nadu Act No. 60 of 1997 w.e.f. 06.11.1997 may also be taken
note of with a caveat that this amendment is not directly applicable to
G
the present case pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97 but has its
relevance in relation to one limb of submissions made before us. By this
amendment, in clause (a) of Section 7-A (1) of the Act, after the
expression “in”, the words “or for” were inserted, resulting in further
widening of the area of coverage of this provision.
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 895
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

17.3. For its relevance, we may extract in juxtaposition the A
progression of this clause (a) of Section 7-A (1) of the Act i.e., as
originally enacted; as applicable to the present case after its amendment
w.e.f. 01.01.1987; and as amended further w.e.f. 06.11.1997 as follows:-
Clause (a) of Clause (a) of Clause (a) of
Section 7-A (1) Section 7-A (1) Section 7-A (1) B
as origina lly
as applicable to as amended
enacted
the present case w.e.f.
after its 06.11.1997
amendment
w.e.f. C
01.01.1987
“(a) consumes “(a) consumes “(a) consumes
such goods in or uses such or uses such
the manufacture goods in the goods in or for
of other goods manufacture of the manufacture
for sale or other goods for of other goods D
otherwise; or”. sale or for sale or
otherwise; or”. otherwise; or”.
(emphasis in bold supplied)
Judicial Interpretations in the cited decisions
E
18. For dealing with the rival contentions, we may also take note
of various facets of interpretation of Section 7-A (1) of the Act in the
relevant cited decisions. It may, however, be observed that so far as the
text of Section 7-A (1) applicable to the case at hand is concerned, there
has not been any direct interpretation by this Court or the jurisdictional
High Court (except the order impugned). In two of the cited decisions, F
one by this Court in the case of M.K. Kandaswami (supra)13 and another
by the High Court in the case of Associated Pharmaceutical Industries
(supra)14, Section 7-A (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act, as existing before its
amendment by Tamil Nadu Act No. 78 of 1986 w.e.f. 01.01.1987, came
up for consideration. The other cited decision in relation to Section 7-A
G
(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act had been by the jurisdictional High Court in
the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra)15 but that was
rendered after further amendments to Section 7-A including that by Tamil
13
Decided on 15.07.1975
14
Decided on 18.01.1984
15
Decided on 14.09.2001 H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Nadu Act No. 60 of 1997 w.e.f. 06.11.1997. Thus, the specific phraseology
of Section 7-A (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act as applicable to the present
case has not been dealt with by any of these decisions. Nevertheless,
each of these decisions had come under reference in this case at every
stage and, having regard to the questions involved, appropriate it would
be to take note of the relevant ratio decidendi from these decisions.
B
19. As regards the decisions of jurisdictional High Court dealing
with Section 7-A (1) of the Act, in the case of Associated
Pharmaceutical Industries (supra), the assessee had purchased and
used the bottles for manufacture and sale of medicines, drugs or syrups.
It was held by the High Court that though without bottling, the drugs and
C syrups manufactured could not be sold but, that could not be a reason
for holding that the process of manufacture of drugs and syrups was not
complete unless they were bottled or put in suitable containers and hence,
it cannot be said that the bottles had been used up in the process of
manufacture; and consequently, the purchase turnover of empty bottles
D could not be brought to charge under Section 7-A (1) (a) of the Act. 16
20. The other decision concerning the provision contained in
Section 7-A (1) of the Act but after yet another amendment to clause
(a) had been by the Madras High Court in the case of Appollo Saline
Pharmaceuticals (supra). Therein, the assessee was engaged in
E manufacturing and marketing of I.V. fluid and the turnover of the bottles
containing I.V. fluid was included in the turnover relating to the fluid by
reason of Section 3 (7) of the Act. The assessee was confronted with a
demand for payment of purchase tax for the reason that the bottles in
which I.V. fluid was packed and sold were those bottles which the
assessee had purchased from unregistered dealers and therefore, those
F bottles had not been subjected to tax at the time of purchase. It was
essentially contended before the Madras High Court on behalf of the
assessee that if the goods in respect of which purchase tax was sought

16
Another decision of the jurisdictional High Court, rendered prior to the amendment
of Section 7-A of the Act w.e.f. 01.01.1987 and even before the decision in Associated
G Pharmaceutical Industries had been in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj
& Co.: (1981) 47 STC 30 (decided on 23.09.1980). In that case, the assessees had
purchased raw bones and converted them into different derivatives like crushed bones,
bone grist, bone-meal, fluff or horn hoof. As regards such process and the end-products,
the High Court held that the purchased goods cannot be said to have been consumed in
the process of manufacture of some other goods and, therefore, Section 7-A (1) was not
H attracted.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 897
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

to be levied continued to be available for sale or purchase and were in A
fact sold, such goods cannot be brought to tax under Section 7-A of the
Act.
20.1. The High Court referred to the expansion of ambit and
coverage of Section 7-A (1) of the Act and observed that after the
amendments, recovery of purchase tax was permissible even in cases B
where goods which had not suffered tax at the time of purchase and are
subsequently disposed of by the dealer in circumstances where value of
turnover relating to those goods is also subject to tax by deeming the
same as forming part of turnover of other taxable goods. The High Court
observed that the inclusion of turnover relating to bottles in the total
turnover of dealer and thereby, such turnover relating to bottles being C
also subjected to tax, did not enable the assessee to get out of the net of
Section 7-A because the bottles were not sold as bottles but were sold
as part of a composite unit namely, I.V. fluid packed in bottles. The High
Court also observed that the amended Section 7-A of the Act referred
to the consumption or use of goods in or for the manufacture of other D
goods; and having regard to the nature of goods and the need for a
container to make those goods marketable, it was required to be held
that the bottles were used in or for the manufacture of I.V. fluid. The
High Court observed and held as under (at pp. 503-504 of STC):
“7. The submissions made by counsel proceeded on the E
assumption that the sole object of section 7-A is to ensure recovery
of tax on the sale or purchase of goods which tax is required to be
paid but had not been paid to the State by reason of the
circumstances in which the purchase was made and one of the
parties to the transaction is a registered dealer. Though that
apparently was the original purpose of the provision, the subsequent F
amendment to that section in the year 1987 by addition of the
words used in section 7-A(1) (a) and enlarging it further by a
further amendment with effect from November 6, 1997 would
indicate that the object of the Legislature is not confined to mere
recovery of tax, which was not recovered by reason of the G
circumstances in which the purchase was made. After the
amendment to section 7-A(1) (a) recovery of purchase tax is
permissible even in cases where the goods which had not suffered
tax, at the time of purchase are used by the dealer and are
subsequently disposed of by the dealer in circumstances where
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A the value of the turnover relating to those goods is also subject to
tax by deeming the same as forming part of the turnover of other
taxable goods.
8. It is no doubt true that the turnover of the bottles is, by reason
of section 3(7), deemed to be part of the turnover of the assessee
B relating to the I.V. fluids and by reason of the inclusion of such
turnover of the bottles in that turnover, the turnover relating to
these bottles is also subjected to tax. Such inclusion of the turnover
relating to bottles, however, does not enable the assessee to get
out of the net of section 7-A as the bottles were not sold as bottles
but as part of a composite unit, viz., I.V. fluids packed in bottles.
C
9. Section 7-A(1)(a) refers to the consumption or use of goods in
or for the manufacture of other goods. Having regard to the nature
of the goods and the need for a container in order to make those
goods marketable, it must necessarily be held that the bottles used
here were bottles used in or for the manufacture of the I.V. fluids,
D having regard to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case
of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax
Officer, Kanpur [1965] 16 STC 563. As set out in the head note
to that decision it was held therein that the expression “in the
manufacture of goods” in sub-section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales
E Tax Act, should normally encompass the entire process carried
on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods.
Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the
ultimate production of goods that, but for that process, manufacture
or processing of goods would not be commercially expedient, goods
required in the process would fall within the expression “in the
F manufacture of goods”.”
20.2. The High Court also found that it was not the case of
assessee that the fluids manufactured by it could be sold in the market
without the aid of bottles. Thus, while reiterating that the bottling of I.V.
fluid was necessary to make it marketable, the High Court held that the
G bottles were clearly the goods which were used in or for the manufacture
of fluid. The projection on the part of assessee that it would be subjected
to additional burden of tax was also rejected while observing as under
(at pp. 504-505 of STC) :
“11. The assessee by reason of this demand for purchase tax has
H not suffered any additional burden as any other manufacturer
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 899
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

of I.V. fluids who sells the fluids in bottles by purchasing A
bottles from another registered dealer on which sales tax
was paid, would also still be required to include the turnover
of those bottles in the turnover of the I.V. fluids. Section 7-
A, as submitted by the learned counsel, was intended to plug loss
of revenue. We were initially troubled when the facts of the case
B
were presented before us as though the assessee was being
burdened with tax twice over. A closure (sic) examination of the
case, however, demonstrated that no such additional burden is
cast on the assessee. On the other hand, not levying the tax would
only amount to the assessee gaining an advantage, which the law
did not intend to provide.” C
(emphasis in bold supplied)
21. Turning over to the cited decisions of this Court, it may be
observed that the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of
M.K. Kandaswami (supra) has a material bearing and is of utmost
significance because the root purpose as also the sweep of this provision D
for levy of purchase tax have been succinctly explained by this Court
while illuminating several of its basic and essential ingredients.
21.1. In the case of M. K. Kandaswami (supra), the respondent
dealers had purchased a variety of goods, namely, arecanuts, gingelly
seeds, turmeric, grams, castor seeds and butter in such circumstances E
where their sales were not liable to tax in the hands of the respective
sellers although the goods were such, whose sale or purchase was
generally liable to tax under the Act.
Against the respondent dealers, either pre-assessment proceedings
had been initiated or assessments had been made under Section 7-A of F
the Act on the purchase turnover of these goods on the assertions by
revenue that the gingelly seeds and castor seeds were crushed into oil
and the butter was converted into ghee by the respective dealers and by
such action, the goods in question were consumed in the manufacture of
other goods for sale; and hence, this action was covered under clause G
(a) of Section 7-A (1). It was also asserted that the other goods namely,
arecanuts, turmeric and gram, were transported by the respective dealers
outside the State for sale on consignment basis and thereby, those cases
were covered by clause (b) or clause (c) of Section 7-A (1). In the
backdrop of these facts, when Section 7-A came up for interpretation in
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High
Court found the phraseology of Section 7-A to be rather carrying
contradiction in terms and the language being far from clear as to its
intention.
21.2. However, this Court did not approve the perspective of High
B Court and explained the true meaning as also the sweep of the respective
expressions in sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act by breaking it
up into different ingredients as follows (at pp. 195-196 of STC):
“On analysis, sub-section (1) breaks up into these ingredients:
(1) The person who purchases the goods is a dealer;
C (2) The purchase is made by him in the course of his business;
(3) Such purchase is either from “a registered dealer or from any
other person”;
(4) The goods purchased are “goods, the sale or purchase of which
is liable to tax under this Act”;
D
(5) Such purchase is “in circumstances in which no tax is payable
under section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be”; and
(6) The dealer either-
(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for
E sale or otherwise or
(b) despatches all such goods in any manner other than by way of
sale in the State or
(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct
result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or
F commerce.
Section 7-A(1) can be invoked if the above ingredients
are cumulatively satisfied…..
*** *** ***”
(emphasis in bold supplied)
G
21.3. This Court, while applying Section 7-A to the given fact
situations, pointed out that this section was at once a charging as also a
remedial provision in the following words (at p. 198 of STC):
“It may be remembered that section 7-A is at once a charging as
H well as a remedial provision. Its main object is to plug leakage and
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 901
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

prevent evasion of tax. In interpreting such a provision, a A
construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate
it from the statute book, should be eschewed. If more than one
construction is possible, that which preserves its workability and
efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose
or sterile. The view taken by the High Court is repugnant to this
B
cardinal canon of interpretation.”
21.4. This Court further referred to the decision in the case of
Ganesh Prasad Dixit (supra) and observed that Section 7 of the Madhya
Pradesh Act, as considered therein, though not carrying exact language
as that of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act but their substance and
object were the same. This Court also noticed that in Ganesh Prasad C
Dixit, it was held that the appellants (building contractors), who were
purchasing building materials which were taxable under the Act and had
been using them in the course of their business, had consumed the
materials otherwise than in the manufacture of goods for sale and for a
profit motive and hence, purchase price was taxable on the plain reading D
of words of Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Act. Taking note of such
exposition, this Court observed in M. K. Kandaswami that the ratio
decidendi of Ganesh Prasad Dixit was apposite guide for construing
Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act in the following (at p. 199 of STC) :
“The impugned section 7-A is based on section 7 of the E
Madhya Pradesh Act. Although the language of these two
provisions is not completely identical, yet their substance and object
are the same. Instead of the longish phrase, “the goods, the sale
or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act” employed in
section 7-A of the Madras Act, section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh
Act conveys the very connotation by using the convenient, terse F
expression “taxable goods”. The ratio decidendi of Ganesh
Prasad is, therefore, an apposite guide for construing section
7- A. Unfortunately, that decision, it seems, was not brought to
the notice of the learned Judges of the High Court.”17
(emphasis in bold supplied) G
21.5. A similar provision like Section 7-A of Tamil Nadu Act was
also contained in Section 5-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act,

17
We shall be referring to the decision in Ganesh Prasad Dixit in necessary details
hereafter a little later. H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 196318 and validity thereof was challenged before the High Court. The
High Court upheld the validity of Section 5-A while explaining the scheme
thereof and, in M. K. Kandaswami, this Court noted with approval the
decision of Kerala High Court and further said that the said Section 5-A
of the Kerala Act was in pari materia with the Section 7-A of the Act.
B 22. Moving on to the other cited decisions, as noticed, the High
Court has followed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Nandanam Construction Co. (supra) and the same decision
has been strongly relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General
for revenue before us. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee
has emphatically relied upon the decision of this Court in Hotel Balaji
C (supra) and particularly on the interpretation put by this Court on the
provisions contained in the Haryana Act with the submissions that the
said provisions had been in pari materia with Section 7-A of the Tamil
Nadu Act. We may, therefore, delve into these two decisions in necessary
details.
D 23. The matter involved in the case of Nandanam Construction
Co. (supra) was laid before the Constitution Bench in view of the conflict
in two 3-Judge Bench decisions of this Court, in Ganesh Prasad Dixit
(supra) on one hand and CST v. Pio Food Packers: 1980 (Supp) SCC
174 on the other.
E 23.1. For proper comprehension of the ratio of Nandanam
Construction Co. (supra), pertinent it shall be to first take note of the
decisions in Ganesh Prasad Dixit and Pio Food Packers (supra) and
the area of conflict therein.
23.1.1. As noticed hereinbefore, in the case of Ganesh Prasad
F Dixit, the appellant, a firm of building contractors and registered as dealer
under the Madhya Pradesh Act, was assessed to tax with respect of
goods purchased by it for use in its construction business. As regards
the issue relating to the imposition of purchase tax under Section 7 of the
Madhya Pradesh Act, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court examined the
G relevant part of Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Act that read as under
(at pp. 346-347 of STC):-
“Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any
taxable goods, in circumstances in which no tax under section 6 is

18
H Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Kerala Act’
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 903
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

payable on the sale price of such goods and either consumes such A
goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or
disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale
in the State or despatches them to a place outside the State except
as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State
trade or commerce, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase
B
price of such goods at the same rate at which it would have been
leviable on the sale price of such goods under section 6……”
This Court observed that even though the phraseology used in
Section 7 of the Act was a bit intricate, the meaning was fairly simple,
giving out the eventualities where purchase tax would be payable i.e.,
when a dealer buys taxable goods in the course of his business and (1) C
either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale;
or (2) consumes such goods otherwise; or (3) disposes of such goods in
any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or (4) despatches
them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or
purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. This Court D
held the said appellant liable to pay the purchase tax as it was registered
as dealer and had purchased building materials, which were taxable under
the Act, in the course of its business; and had consumed the materials
otherwise than in the manufacture of goods for sale and for a profit-
motive. This Court also examined another contention on behalf of the
appellant that the expression “or otherwise” was intended to denote E
alternative to the expression “sale” immediately preceding and, therefore,
the price paid for buying goods consumed in the manufacture of other
goods intended to be sold or otherwise disposed of was taxable. This
Court did not accept this contention while deducing the intention of
Legislature that the consumption of goods renders the price paid for F
their purchase taxable, if the goods are used in the manufacture of other
goods for sale or if the goods are consumed otherwise. The relevant
observations and interpretation by this Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit
could be usefully noticed as under (at pp. 348-349 of STC) :-
“Counsel for the appellants urged that in the cases of H. G
Abdul Bakshi and Bros. and L.M.S. Sadak Thamby & Co., the
assessees were carrying on the business of selling goods
manufactured by them and for the purpose of manufacturing those
goods certain other goods were purchased and consumed in the
process of manufacture, but here the goods are not consumed in
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A producing another commodity for sale, and on that account the
two cases are distinguishable. The answer to that argument must
be sought in the terms of section 7. The phraseology used in
that section is somewhat involved, but the meaning of the
section is fairly plain. Where no sales tax is payable under
section 6 on the sale price of the goods, purchase tax is
B
payable by a dealer who buys taxable goods in the course
of his business, and ( 1) either consumes such goods in the
manufacture of other goods for sale, or (2) consumes such
goods otherwise, or (3) disposes of such goods in any
manner other than by way of sale in the State, or ( 4)
C despatches them to a place outside the State except as a
direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State
trade or commerce. The assessees are registered as dealers
and they have purchased building materials in the course of their
business; the building materials are taxable under the Act, and the
appellants have consumed the materials otherwise than in the
D
manufacture of goods for sale and for a profit-motive. On the
plain words of section 7 the purchase price is taxable.
Mr Chagla for the appellants urged that the expression “or
otherwise” is intended to denote a conjunctive introducing specific
alternative to the words “for sale” immediately preceding. The
E clause in which it occurs means, says Mr Chagla, that by section
7 the price paid for buying goods consumed in the manufacture of
other goods, intended to be sold or otherwise disposed of, alone is
taxable. We do not think that that is a reasonable interpretation of
the expression “either consumes such goods in the manufacture
F of other goods for sale or otherwise”. It is intended by the
Legislature that consumption of goods renders the price
paid for their purchase taxable, if the goods are used in the
manufacture of other goods for sale or if the goods are
consumed otherwise.”
G (emphasis in bold supplied)
23.1.2. However, in Pio Food Packers (supra), a note discordant
to the above extracted enunciation came to be stated by another 3-
Judge Bench of this Court. In that case, the respondent was carrying on
the business of manufacturing and selling canned fruit apart from other
H products. In its return for the year 1973-74, the respondent claimed that
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 905
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

the turnover representing the purchase of pineapple fruit was not liable A
to purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Kerala Act for the reason that
the pineapple fruit was converted into pineapple slices, pineapple jam,
pineapple squash and pineapple juice but by way of such conversion of
pineapple fruit into its products, no new commodity was created and
therefore, it was erroneous to say that there was a consumption of
B
pineapple fruit “in the manufacture” of those goods. This Court observed
as regards the connotations of “manufacture” that ‘it is only when the
change, or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point
where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original
commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article
that a manufacture can be said to take place’. As regards the process/ C
es involved in the said matter, the Court accepted the submissions of
assessee that the pineapple slices continued to possess the same identity
as the original pineapple fruit and there was no consumption of the original
pineapple fruit for the purpose of manufacture. It was also contended
on behalf of the revenue that even if no manufacturing process was
D
involved, the case fell within Section 5-A(1)(a) of Kerala Act, as the
same was speaking not only of goods consumed in the manufacture of
other goods for sale but also of goods consumed otherwise. The Court
did not accept this contention of revenue while observing that on true
construction, the clause in question was only speaking of goods
consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or of goods E
consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other than
sale. The Court, inter alia, observed, held and concluded as follows (at
pp. 66-67 of STC):-
“…..Although a degree of processing is involved in preparing
pineapple slices from the original fruit, the commodity continues F
to possess its original identity, notwithstanding the removal of
inedible portions, the slicing and thereafter canning it on adding
sugar to preserve it. It is contended for the revenue that pineapple
slices have a higher price in the market than the original fruit and
that implies that the slices constitute a different commercial
commodity. The higher price, it seems to us, is occasioned only G
because of the labour put into making the fruit more readily
consumable and because of the can employed to contain it. It is
not as if the higher price is claimed because it is a different
commercial commodity. It is said that pineapple slices appeal to a
different sector of the trade and that when a customer asks for a H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A can of pineapple slices he has in mind something very different
from fresh pineapple fruit. Here again, the distinction in the mind
of the consumer arises not from any difference in the essential
identity of the two, but is derived from the mere form in which the
fruit is desired.
B The learned counsel for the revenue contends that even if
no manufacturing process is involved, the case still falls within
section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, because
the statutory provision speaks not only of goods consumed in the
manufacture of other goods for sale but also goods consumed
otherwise. There is a fallacy in the submission. The clause, truly
C read, speaks of goods consumed in the manufacture of other
goods for sale or goods consumed in the manufacture of
other goods for purposes other than sale.
In the result, we hold that when pineapple fruit is processed
into pineapple slices for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans
D there is no consumption of the original pineapple fruit for the purpose
of manufacture. The case does not fall within section 5A(1)(a) of
the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The High Court is right in the
view taken by it.”
(emphasis in bold supplied)
E
23.2. Thus, there had been a subtle but significant divergence in
the aforesaid two decisions inasmuch as in Ganesh Prasad Dixit, a 3-
Judge Bench of this Court construed the operation of expression “or
otherwise” in the manner that consumption/use of goods in question
would render price paid for their purchase taxable, (i) if the goods were
F consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale; or (ii) if the goods
were consumed otherwise. However, in Pio Food Packers, another 3-
Judge Bench of this Court construed the similar provision carrying the
expression “or otherwise” to mean that the same was speaking, (i) of
goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale; or (ii) of
G goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods for purposes other
than sale. In other words, while Ganesh Prasad Dixit gave out the
interpretation that the expression “or otherwise” was providing alternative
to the action of “manufacture” whereas Pio Food Packers held, in
relation to similar provision in other statute, that this expression “or
otherwise” provided alternative to the action of “sale”. This divergence
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 907
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

of the views in Ganesh Prasad Dixit and Pio Food Packers led to the A
matter being placed before the Constitution Bench.
23.3. Keeping the aforesaid background in mind, we may now
revert to the decision in Nandanam Construction Co. wherein, the
Constitution Bench of this Court resolved the divergence while approving
the view in Ganesh Prasad Dixit. B
23.3.1. In Nandanam Construction Co. (supra), the background
factual aspects had been that the respondents, who were engaged in
building of flats and houses, had bought the material such as sand, bricks
and granite from unregistered dealers and without payment of sales tax.
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes called upon the C
respondents to produce their books of accounts while proposing to hold
them liable for purchase tax under Section 6-A of Andhra Pradesh Act.
On the proposed action being challenged, the High Court held that in
order to attract Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act, there ought to
be consumption of the original goods for the purpose of manufacture of
other goods for sale or for purposes other than sale; and in the absence D
of such consumption, the respondents were not liable to purchase tax.
For this proposition, the High Court relied on the decision in Pio Food
Packers (supra). In the appeal before this Court, the contention of
revenue was that the said Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act was
applicable to ‘consumption of original goods in the manufacture of the E
other goods for sale or consumption of original goods otherwise’. On the
other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the view
taken in Pio Food Packers, as followed in CST v. Thomas Stephen &
Co. Ltd.: (1988) 2 SCC 264 must be accepted and at any rate, if two
views were possible, the assessee should be given the benefit of doubt.
F
23.3.2. The Constitution Bench of this Court took note of Section
6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act that read as under (in para 3 at p. 429 of
STC):
“6-A. Levy of tax on turnover relating to purchase of certain
goods. —Every dealer, who in the course of business— G
(i) purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable
to tax under this Act) from a registered dealer in circumstances
in which no tax is payable under section 5 or under section 6,
as the case may be, or
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to
tax under this Act) from a person other than a registered dealer,
and
(a) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other
goods for sale or otherwise, or
B (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way
of sale in the State, or
(c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a
direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State
trade or commerce,
C
shall pay tax on the turnover relating to purchase aforesaid at the
same rate at which but for the existence of the aforementioned
circumstances, the tax would have been leviable on such goods
under section 5 or section 6.”

D 23.3.3. While dealing with the contentions of the parties and finding
that sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of Section 6-A was applicable, the
Constitution Bench pointed out that the object of the said provision was
to levy purchase tax on goods consumed either for the purpose of
manufacture of other goods for sale or consumed otherwise. The
Constitution Bench did not approve the view expressed in Pio Food
E Packers to that extent while pointing out that the intention of the
Legislature was to bring to purchase tax in either event of consumption
of goods in the manufacture of goods for sale or consumption of goods
in any other manner. The Constitution Bench also indicated the logic
that once the goods were utilized in construction of buildings, they ceased
F to exist or ceased to be available in the original form for sale or purchase
so as to attract the tax. The Constitution Bench observed and held as
under (at p. 431 of STC):
“10. We are concerned in this case only with clause (a) of sub-
section (ii) of section 6-A, that is, either consumption of such
goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise.
G
Clause (ii) of section 6-A of the Act postulates levy of tax on
purchase of goods from a person other than a registered dealer
for consumption or disposal or despatch of goods outside the State.
So the scheme of clause (ii) of section 6-A of the Act is that
when the goods cease to exist in the original form or cease to be
H available in the State for sale or purchase, the purchasing dealer
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 909
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

of such goods is liable to tax if the seller is not or cannot be taxed. A
To our mind, it appears that the object of section 6-A(ii)(a)
of the Act is to levy purchase tax on goods consumed either
for the purpose of manufacture of other goods for sale or
consumed otherwise. If the view in Pio Food Packers [1980]
46 STC 63 (SC) ; [1980] 3 SCR 1271, is accepted the result
B
would be that the expression “otherwise” will qualify the
expression “sale” and not the expression “manufacture”,
which appears to us to be erroneous on a plain construction
of the provision. The intention of the legislature, it appears
to us, is to bring to purchase tax in either event of
consumption of goods in the manufacture of goods for sale C
or consumption of goods in any other manner. Once the goods
are utilised in the construction of buildings the goods cease to
exist or cease to be available in that form for sale or purchase so
as to attract the tax and, therefore, the correct meaning to be
attributed to the said provision would be that tax will be attracted
D
when such goods are consumed in the manufacture of other goods
or are consumed otherwise. Therefore, while agreeing with the
view in Ganesh Prasad Dixit [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC) ; [1969] 3
SCR 490, on this aspect, we overrule to this extent the view
expressed in Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC) ; [1980]
3 SCR 1271.” E
(emphasis in bold supplied)
24. Having taken note of the enunciation by the Constitution Bench
of this Court which has been strongly relied upon by the revenue, we
may also take note of the counter reliance placed by the learned senior
counsel for the assessee on the decision of this Court in Hotel Balaji F
(supra).
24.1 The discussion in the lead judgment in Hotel Balaji makes it
clear that different provisions for levy of purchase tax in various State
Sales Tax enactments, like those contained in Gujarat Sales Tax Act,
1969, Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax G
Act, 1957 and Haryana Sales Tax Act19 amongst others, came up for
consideration before this Court in the wake of challenge to the
constitutional validity thereof. In the referred paragraphs, this Court took
19
For brevity and continuity, such State enactments have been referred herein with
reference to the names of respective States. H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A note of the original and amended provisions relating to purchase tax, as
contained in Section 9 of the Haryana Act as follows (at pp. 137-139 of
STC):
“… Section 9 of the Haryana Act, before it was amended by
Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act,
B 1983, read as follows:
“9. Where a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act purchases
goods other than those specified in Schedule B from any source
in the State and—
(a) uses them in the State in the manufacture of, —
C
(i) goods specified in Schedule B or
(ii) any other goods
and disposes of the manufactured goods in any
manner otherwise than by way of sale whether within the
D State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or
within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the course of export out of
the territory of India,
(b) exports them,
E in the circumstances in which no tax is payable under
any other provision of this Act, there shall be levied,
subject to the provisions of section 17, a tax on the
purchase of such goods at such rate as may be notified
under section 15.”
F *** *** ***
After it was amended by the aforesaid amendment Act,
sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9 read as follows:
“9. Liability to pay purchase tax.— (1) Where a dealer
G liable to pay tax under this Act,—
(a) purchases goods, other than those specified in
Schedule B, from any source in the State and uses them
in the State in the manufacture of goods specified in
Schedule B; or
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 911
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

(b) purchases goods, other than those specified in A
Schedule B, from any source in the State and uses them
in the State in the manufacture of any other goods and
either disposes of the manufactured goods in any manner
otherwise than by way of sale in the State or despatches
the manufactured goods to a place outside the state in
B
any manner otherwise than by way of sale in the course
of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of
export outside the territory of India within the meaning
of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956; or
(c) purchases goods, other than those specified in C
Schedule B, from any source in the State and exports
them,
in the circumstances in which no tax is payable under
any other provision of the Act, there shall be levied, subject
to the provisions of section 17 a tax on the purchases of D
such goods at such rate as may be notified under section
15.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the
Rules made thereunder, if the goods leviable to tax under
this section are exported in the same condition in which E
they were purchased, the tax shall be levied, charged and
paid at the station of despatch or at any other station before
the goods leave the State and the tax so levied, charged
and paid shall be provisional and the same shall be adjustable
towards the tax due from the dealer on such purchase as a F
result of assessment or reassessment made in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder
on the production of proof regarding the payment thereof
in the State.”
24.2. While interpreting the said provision in Section 9 of the G
Haryana Act, this Court said as follows (at pp. 141-142 and 145-146 of
STC):-
“The crucial question, therefore, is what is the basis of taxation in
either of the above provisions? …… Let us first deal with section
9 of the Haryana Act (as amended in 1983). Properly analysed,
H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A the following are the ingredients of the section : (i) a dealer liable
to pay tax under the Act purchases goods (other than those
specified in Schedule B) from any source in the State and (ii)
uses them in the State in the manufacture of any other goods and
(iii) either disposes of the manufactured goods in any manner
otherwise than by way of sale in the State or despatches the
B
manufactured goods to a place outside the State in any manner
otherwise than by way of sale in the course of a inter -State trade
or commerce or in the course of export outside the territory of
India within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. If all the above three ingredients are
C satisfied, the dealer becomes liable to pay tax on the purchase of
such goods at such rate, as may be notified under section 15.
Now, what does the above analysis signify? The section applies
only in those cases where (a) the goods are purchased (for
convenience sake, I may refer to them as raw material) by
D a dealer liable to pay tax under the Act in the State, (b) the
goods so purchased cease to exist as such goods for the
reason they are consumed in the manufacture of different
commodities and (c) such manufactured commodities are
either disposed of within the State otherwise than by way of
sale or despatched to a place outside the State otherwise
E than by way of an inter-State sale or export sale. It is evident
that if such manufactured goods are not sold within the State of
Haryana, but yet disposed of within the State, no tax is payable on
such disposition; similarly, where manufactured goods are
despatched out of State as a result of an inter- State sale (sic) or
F export sale, no tax is payable on such sale. Similarly again where
such manufactured goods are taken out of State to manufacturers’
own depots or to the depots of his agents, no tax is payable on
such removal.….
*** *** ***
G …… To repeat, the scheme of section 9 of Haryana Act is to
levy the tax on purchase of raw material and not to forego it
where the goods manufactured out of them are disposed of (or
despatched, as the case may be) in a manner not yielding any
revenue to the State nor serving the interests of nation and its
H economy, as explained hereinbefore. The purchased goods are
put an end to by their consumption in manufacture of other
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 913
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

goods and yet the manufactured goods are dealt with in a A
manner as to deprive the State of any revenue; in such
cases, there is no reason why the State should forego its
tax revenue on purchase of raw material.”
(emphasis in bold supplied)
Deducing the applicable principles B

25. Having taken note of the relevant statutory provisions as also
enunciations in the cited decisions, necessary now it is to cull out the
principles to be applied to the present case.
26. Before proceeding further, we may usefully refer to the well- C
recognised doctrine of “pari materia” whereby and whereunder,
reference to the decisions dealing with other statutes on the same subject
is regarded as a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a
statute. Suffice would be, in this regard, to refer to the decision in
Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer:
(2004) 1 SCC 755 wherein this Court applied the doctrine of “pari D
materia” with reference to the relevant observations in Principles of
Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh as follows (at page 760
of SCC):-
“12….On the doctrine of “pari materia”, reference to other
statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same E
system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a
statute. See the following observations contained in Principles
of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh (8th Edn.), Syn. 4, at
pp. 235 to 239:
“Statutes in pari materia F
It has already been seen that a statute must be read as a
whole as words are to be understood in their context.
Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other
statutes in pari materia i.e. statutes dealing with the same
subject-matter or forming part of the same system. Viscount G
Simonds in a passage already noticed conceived it to be a
right and duty to construe every word of a statute in its
context and he used the word context in its widest sense
including ‘other statutes in pari materia’. As stated by Lord
Mansfield ‘where there are different statutes in pari materia
though made at different times, or even expired, and not H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed
together, as one system and as explanatory of each other’.
* * *
The application of this rule of construction has the merit of
avoiding any apparent contradiction between a series of
B statutes dealing with the same subject; it allows the use of
an earlier statute to throw light on the meaning of a phrase
used in a later statute in the same context; it permits the
raising of a presumption, in the absence of any context
indicating a contrary intention, that the same meaning
C attaches to the same words in a later statute as in an earlier
statute if the words are used in similar connection in the
two statutes; and it enables the use of a later statute as
parliamentary exposition of the meaning of ambiguous
expressions in an earlier statute.”
D 26.1. We may, however, usefully add a caveat in regard to the
application of the doctrine of pari materia, as entered in the same classic
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh20 as follows:
“It is settled law that words used in a particular statute cannot be
used to interpret the same word in a different statute especially
E when the two statutes are not pari materia …..”
27. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view and having
regard to the questions of construction involved in the present case, it
appears appropriate to recapitulate the texts of the relevant provisions
concerning purchase tax as occurring in different State enactments which
F have come in reference in the present case; and for proper appreciation,
it would be useful to put the relevant texts in juxtaposition to notice their
similarities and akin features as also the dissimilarities and distinctive
features. The material parts of the relevant provisions read as under:-
Tamil Nadu Act Section 7-A. Levy of purchase tax:
G (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 3, every dealer who in the course of
his business purchases from a registered
dealer or from any other person, any goods,
(the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax
20
H 14th Edition- at p. 330
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 915
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

under this Act) in circumstances in which A
no tax is payable under sections 3 or 4,
as the case may be, not being a
circumstance in which goods liable to tax
under sub-section (2) of section 3 or
section 4, were purchased at a point other B
than the taxable point specified in the
First or the Second Schedule and either,
(a) consumes or uses such goods in the
manufacture of other for sale or
otherwise; or
C
in any manner other than by way of sale in
the State; or
(c) despatches or carries them to a place
outside the State except as a direct result
of sale or purchase in the course of inter- D
State trade or commerce, shall pay tax on
the turnover relating to the purchase as
aforesaid at the rate mentioned in sections
3 or 4, as the case may be.

E
Andhra Pradesh Act 6-A. Levy of tax on turnover relating to
purchase of certain goods.— Every
dealer, who in the course of business—
(i) purchases any goods (the sale or
purchase of which is liable to tax under
this Act) from a registered dealer in F
circumstances in which no tax is
payable under section 5 or under
section 6, as the case may be, or
(ii) purchases any goods (the sale or
purchase of which is liable to tax under G
this Act) from a person other than a
registered dealer, and
(a) either consumes such goods in the
manufacture of other goods for sale
or otherwise, or
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A (b) disposes of such goods in any manner
other than by way of sale in the State, or
(c) despatches them to a place outside the
State except as a direct result of sale or
purchase in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover relating
B
to purchase aforesaid at the same rate at which
but for the existence of the aforementioned
circumstances, the tax would have been leviable
on such goods under section 5 or section 6

C Madhya Pradesh Section 7
Act
Every dealer who in the course of his business
purchases any taxable goods, in circumstances
in which no tax under section 6 is payable on
the sale price of such goods and either
D consumes such goods in the
sale or otherwise or
disposes of such goods in any manner other than
by way of sale in the State or despatches them
to a place outside the State except as a direct
E result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-
State trade or commerce, shall be liable to pay
tax on the purchase price of such goods at the
same rate at which it would have been leviable
on the sale price of such goods under section
6……
F
Haryana Act 9. Liability to pay purchase tax.— (1) Where
a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act,—

(a) purchases goods, other than those
specified in Schedule B, from any source
G in the State and uses them in the
State in the manufacture of goods
specified in Schedule B; or

in Schedule B, from any source
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 917
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

in the State and uses them in the State A
in the manufacture of any other goods
and either disposes of the
manufactured goods in any manner
otherwise than by way of sale in the State
or despatches the manufactured goods
B
to a place outside the state in any manner
otherwise than by way of sale in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce
or in the course of export outside the
territory of India within the meaning of sub-
section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales C
Tax Act, 1956; or

(c) purchases goods, other than those
specified in Schedule B, from any source in
the State and exports them, in the
circumstances in which no tax is payable D
under any other provision of the Act, there
shall be levied, subject to the provisions of
section 17 a tax on the purchases of such
goods at such rate as may be notified under
section 15. E
(emphasis in bold and underlines supplied)
28. As noticed, so far as the text of Section 7-A (1) applicable to
the case at hand is concerned, there has not been any direct interpretation
by this Court or the jurisdictional High Court (except the order impugned).
F
We may also usefully reiterate that so far decision of Madras High Court
in the case of Associated Pharmaceuticals Industries (supra) is
concerned, the same was rendered before the relevant amendments to
Section 7-A of the Act and particularly when the expression “or uses”
was not there in clause (a) of Section 7-A (1). Only the expression
“consumes” was considered therein and the High Court held that the G
bottles were not consumed in manufacture of drugs or syrups. So far
the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Appollo Saline
Pharmaceuticals (supra) is concerned, as noticed, the same was
rendered after further amendment to Section 7-A whereby, the expression
“or for” was added to clause (a), which expression was not there in the
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A provision applicable to the present case. This apart, the activity examined
in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals had been of the sale of
I.V. fluid packed in bottles. We shall refer to this decision a little later
while dealing with the second limb of contentions on the part of the
assessee about the effect of charging sales tax on bottles at the time of
sale by the assessee, at the rate applicable to its contents but cannot
B
take any assistance from the same for the purpose of deducing the basic
ingredients of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, as in force during the
assessment year in question. Having said so, we may look at the principles
available in the decisions of this Court dealing with either Section 7-A of
the Tamil Nadu Act as earlier existing or the provisions in other enactments
C dealing with the same subject of the levy of purchase tax.
29. Now reverting to the cited decisions of this Court, we may at
once observe that so far the decision in Hotel Balaji (supra) is concerned,
reliance on the above extracted paragraphs on behalf of assessee has
been entirely misplaced because the provision of purchase tax in the
D Haryana Act, as interpreted in Hotel Balaji, cannot be said to be in
pari materia with Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act inasmuch as, in
the phraseology of Section 9 of the Haryana Act, the expression “or
otherwise”, qualifying the action of “manufacture” (as available in Tamil
Nadu Act) had not been there. To be more specific, the referred
observations in Hotel Balaji cannot apply to the Tamil Nadu Act for the
E simple reason that in Section 9 of the Haryana Act, levy of purchase tax
was envisaged in the event either of use of goods in question in
manufacture of the goods specified in Schedule B; or use of goods in
questions in the manufacture of any other goods and their disposal/
despatch in the manner specified; or export of the goods in question.
F Significantly, neither in clause (a) nor in clause (b) of the said Section 9
of the Haryana Act, the Legislature had provided for any alternative to,
or expansion of, the activity of “manufacture” by using any expression
like “otherwise”, as seen in other enactments on the same subject. Of
course, the expression “otherwise” has occurred in clause (b) of Section
9 of the Haryana Act at two places, but only in relation to the mode of
G disposal and despatch respectively. For want of the expression “or
otherwise” at the relevant place, so as to cover the activity not only of
manufacture but of its consumption or use in any other manner, the
provision in Haryana Act stands at fundamentally different footing and
this decision in Hotel Balaji is of no assistance in interpretation of Section
H 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 919
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

29.1. It needs hardly any re-emphasis that the scope and ambit of A
the provisions of purchase tax in different State enactments had been
different on material particulars; and it is apparent that for difference in
phraseology, interpretation of one particular State Sales Tax Act cannot
be ipso facto imported for interpreting another enactment. Learned senior
counsel for the assessee has endeavoured to persuade us that the
B
observations made in Hotel Balaji (supra) in relation to Haryana Act
may apply to the present case too but, we are afraid, the submissions
cannot be accepted because of a fundamental difference in the ambit
and scope of the Haryana Act compared to the ambit and scope of
Tamil Nadu Act with which we are concerned in these appeals. We
may, therefore move on to the other decisions of this Court for the purpose C
of interpretation of Section 7-A of the Act and for finding out the principles
to be applied to the present case.
30. As noticed, the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the
case of M. K. Kandaswami (supra) was rendered in relation to the
provision of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, as existing at the relevant D
time. The later amendment of this provision (w.e.f. 01.01.1987), with
which we are concerned in this case, has only enlarged its width by
insertion of the expression “or uses” after the expression “consumes”
and thereby, not only consumption but even use in the manner envisaged
by the provision would provide coverage thereunder. Therefore, when
the later amendment has not altered the basics of Section 7-A of the Act E
and had only enlarged its scope, the principles applicable to the present
case could be culled out from the enunciation in M. K. Kandaswami,
with necessary variation, rather enlargement.
31. As held in M. K. Kandaswami (supra), Section 7-A of the
Act is a charging as well as a remedial provision, its main object being to F
plug leakage and prevent evasion of tax; and in interpreting such a
provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose or render it
otiose should be eschewed. As regards workability of Section 7-A of the
Act, this Court catalogued its ingredients in a point-wise break up and
pointed out that it would apply only if all such ingredients are cumulatively G
satisfied. We have extracted the analysis so made by this Court
hereinbefore21. The same analysis shall apply to the provision of Section
7-A with which we are concerned in the present case with necessary
variation and with major difference that in point No. 6(a), the expression
21
Vide paragraph 19.2. ibid. H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A “or uses” shall also get added because of the amendment above-noted.
Therefore, applying the analysis in M.K. Kandaswami with necessary
modification, Section 7-A (1), as existing in the statute during the period
relevant for the present case, would become applicable if the following
basic ingredients are cumulatively satisfied: -
B (1) The person who purchases the goods is a dealer and is covered
under Section 3(1) of the Act;
(2) the purchase is made by him in the course of his business;
(3) such purchase is either from a registered dealer or from any
other person;
C
(4) the goods purchased are those goods whose sale or purchase
is liable to tax under the Act;
(5) such purchase is in circumstances in which no tax is payable
under Section 3 or 4, as the case may be (but not being the excepted
D circumstance with reference to the point of purchase); and
(6) the dealer either-
(a) consumes or uses such goods in the manufacture of other
goods for sale or otherwise, or
(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way
E
of sale in the State, or
(c) despatches or carries them to a place outside the State
except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce.
F 32. The analysis as above fairly gives insight as to the ambit and
scope of Section 7-A (1) of the Act but it is the expression “or otherwise”,
as occurring in clause (a) of this provision [point No. 6(a) ibid.] that,
perforce, calls for yet deeper exploration to understand the range of
coverage of this provision. However, this exploration does not require
any lengthy discussion for the directly applicable dictum of the Constitution
G Bench in the case of Nandanam Construction Co. (supra).
33. As noticed, the relevant clauses in Section 6-A of the Andhra
Pradesh Act had been more or less similar to those contained in Section
7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act and while construing the same in Nandanam
Construction Co. (supra), the Constitution Bench specifically held that
H the object of the said provision was to levy purchase tax on goods
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 921
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

consumed either for the purpose of manufacture of other goods for sale A
or consumed otherwise.22 Be it noted that the additional expression “or
uses” was not there in the said Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act
either. In other words, the phraseology examined by the Constitution
Bench in Nandanam Construction Co. was akin to that of Section 7-A
of the Tamil Nadu Act as existing earlier and as examined in M.K.
B
Kandaswami. Further, noticeably, in M.K. Kandaswami, the 3-Judge
Bench held that the decision in Ganesh Prasad Dixit, wherein the
provision contained in Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Act had been
interpreted by this Court, was apposite guide for construing Section 7-A
of the Tamil Nadu Act; and then, in Nandanam Construction Co., the
Constitution Bench approved the enunciation in Ganesh Prasad Dixit C
as regards the interpretation of the expression “or otherwise” while
making it absolutely clear that this expression “or otherwise” provided
alternative to the expression “manufacture” and not to the expression
“sale”; and the converse interpretation as regards this expression “or
otherwise” in Pio Food Packers was overruled. The provision in Section
D
7 of the Madhya Pradesh Act had also been similar to the original Section
7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act.
33.1. As noticed, by the amendment with effect from 01.01.1987,
the scope of Section 7-A (1) has only been enlarged with addition of the
expression “or uses”. Looking to the expressions of Section 7-A (1) of
the Tamil Nadu Act, as existing earlier and as existing after the E
amendment, we are clearly of the view that the enunciation by the
Constitution Bench in Nandanam Construction Co., read with the
approved interpretation in Ganesh Prasad Dixit, would equally apply
to the amended provision with necessary modulation after its expansion.
34. When the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench F
in Nandanam Construction Co. coupled with the approved interpretation
in Ganesh Prasad Dixit are read with the analysis in M.K. Kandaswami
and are applied to the amended Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act with
which we are concerned in this case, the end-product of synthesis is
that the expression “or otherwise” qualifies, and provides alternative to, G
the action of “manufacture”; and therefore, consumption of the goods in
question for manufacture or otherwise as also use of the goods in question
for manufacture or otherwise are the acts/actions covered under clause
( a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act.
22
vide paragraph 23.3.3 ibid. H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 34.1. In other words, when we apply the principles laid down by
the Constitution Bench in Nandanam Construction Co. to the
phraseology of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Tamil
Nadu Act, four eventualities are covered thereunder, with reference to
the treatment of the goods in question (which had been purchased by
the dealer in the circumstances where sales tax had not been paid at the
B
time of their purchase), viz.,
(i) when they are consumed in manufacture of other goods for
sale; or
(ii) when they are consumed otherwise; or
C (iii) when they are used in manufacture of other goods for sale; or
(iv) when they are used otherwise.
Application of the relevant principles to the case at hand
35. Put in a nutshell, with the discussion foregoing, we have found
D that for applicability of Section 7-A (1) of the Act, as existing in the
statute during the period relevant for the present case, basic ingredients
(compiled in paragraph 31 hereinbefore) ought to be cumulatively
satisfied; and for coverage of any case under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 7-A of the Act, one or more of the eventualities envisaged
therein (catalogued in paragraph 34.1. hereinabove) ought to exist.
E
Having thus deduced the necessary ingredients/elements and relevant
principles, we may now embark upon the enquiry as to whether purchase
tax under Section 7-A of the Act is leviable over the turnover in question.
36. As noticed, for the purpose of its business of manufacture and
sale of Beer and IMFL, the assessee had purchased empty bottles from
F
unregistered dealers situated outside the State as well as from non-dealers
for the bottling of Beer and IMFL. The assessee would assert that
purchase tax on the turnover in question is not leviable for the reason the
said empty bottles were recycled after use by the consumers and were
re-filled with Beer/IMFL; and that the said bottles had not been consumed
G or used in the manufacture of liquor and they were only used as containers
in which already manufactured liquor was bottled for carrying and sale.
The counter stand of revenue is that use of the said bottles is imperative
in the manufacture of Beer/IMFL and packaging of Beer/IMFL in glass
bottles has to be seen as an inseparable composite unit; and therefore,
purchase tax on the turnover of purchase of such empty bottles is leviable,
H for being covered by Section 7-A (1) (a) of the Act.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 923
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

36.1. The assessee has urged another contention that the sale A
value of bottles has been subjected to tax at the time of sale of its contents
and therefore, there could arise no question of levy of purchase tax on
these very bottles, which are meant for repeated use. To this, the stand
of revenue is that levy of sales tax on the bottles sold with liquor is of no
bearing because such sales tax on bottles is leviable when they are sold
B
as containers of liquor, even if the empty bottles were purchased after
payment of tax.
37. Taking up the first limb of submissions with reference to the
activity in question, when we examine the ingredients for applicability of
Section 7-A (1) of the Act, it is not in dispute that: (1) the assessee, who
has purchased the goods in question (the empty bottles), is a dealer and C
is covered under Section 3 (1) of the Act; (2) the said purchase has been
made by the assessee in the course of its business; (3) such purchase
has been from unregistered dealers situated outside the State as well as
from non-dealers; (4) sale or purchase of the goods purchased (the empty
bottles) is liable to tax under the Act; and (5) such purchase has been in D
circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 3 or 4 and has
not been in any excepted circumstance with reference to the point of
purchase. These indisputable features unfailingly lead to the position
that ingredients (1) to (5) of Section 7-A (1) of the Act, as mentioned in
paragraph 31 hereinbefore, are satisfied.
E
37.1. However, as noticed, for applicability of Section 7-A (1) of
the Act, all the six ingredients need to be cumulatively satisfied. The
ingredient (6) has three alternatives viz., the dealer has either (a)
consumed or used the goods in question in the manufacture of other
goods for sale or otherwise, or (b) has disposed of such goods in any
manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) has despatched or F
carried them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale
or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It is not in
dispute that clauses (b) or (c) of this ingredient are not attracted in this
case, for the entire manufactured Beer/IMFL, after bottling, having been
sold by the assessee only to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation G
Limited (TASMAC) within the State of Tamil Nadu.
38. With the filtration foregoing, we have reached to the core of
this matter i.e., as to whether the activity in question falls within the
ambit of clause (a) of Section 7-A (1) of the Act? As already noticed, as
per the language used, this provision comes in operation when the dealer H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A ‘consumes or uses such goods in the manufacture of other goods
for sale or otherwise’. Hence, the activity in question would be so
covered if any one of the four elements of clause (a) exists, i.e., (i) if the
goods in question are consumed in manufacture of other goods for sale;
or (ii) if they are consumed otherwise; or (iii) if they are used in
manufacture of other goods for sale; or (iv) if they are used otherwise.
B
39. In view of their intrinsic connectivity, we may first examine
the elements (i) and (iii) and shall examine the other elements a little
later. Now, in order to examine as to whether any of these elements (i)
or (iii) exists or not, we may look at the meaning and connotation of the
expressions “consume”, “use” and “manufacture” employed in clause
C (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act with a little reference to
the etymology related with these expressions as also to the semantics
related with the preposition “in”.
39.1. As per Concise Oxford English Dictionary23, one of the
meaning assigned to the verb “consume”24 is ‘eat, drink or ingest. –
D use up.-(especially of a fire) completely destroy’. The noun derived
from this verb is “consumption”, which has been assigned one of the
meanings in the same dictionary 25 as ‘the action or process of
consuming. – an amount consumed’.
39.1.1. Similarly, as per Black’s Law Dictionary26, the word
E “consume” signifies, amongst others, ‘to destroy the substance of esp.
by fire; to use up or wear out gradually, as by burning or eating’;
‘to use up (time, resources, etc.), whether fruitfully or fruitlessly’;
and ‘to eat or drink; to devour’. The word “consumption” has been
defined therein27 being ‘the act of destroying a thing by using it; the
F use of a thing in a way that exhaust it’.
39.2. The expression “use”, which is used as verb as also as
noun, has been assigned variegated meanings in Concise Oxford English
Dictionary28, which include, as regards its verb form to mean, ‘take,
hold or deploy as a means of achieving something’; and in its noun
G form to mean ‘the action of using or state of being used’.
23
Twelfth South Asian Edition, p. 307
24
Derived from latin consumere (con – ‘altogether’ + sumere – ‘take out’)
25
ibid., p. 307
26
Tenth Edition., p. 382
27
ibid., p. 384
H 28
ibid., p. 1593
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 925
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

39.2.1. Similarly, in Black’s Law Dictionary29, the expression “use” A
is defined, inter alia, to mean in its noun form as being ‘the application
or employment of something’; and in its verb form ‘to employ for the
accomplishment of a purpose’.
39.3. Both the expressions “consumes” and “uses”, denoting
particular form of action, have been employed in clause (a) of Section B
7-A (1) of the Act as verbs, which do form the main part of the predicate
of the sentence. These verbs co-relate with the word “manufacture”.
Now, so far the word “manufacture”30 is concerned, which too is used
in the language as verb as also as noun, is defined in Concise Oxford
English Dictionary31 in its verb form to carry the meaning, amongst others,
as to ‘make (something) on a large scale using machinery’ and its C
noun form to mean ‘the process of manufacturing’.
39.3.1. In Black’s Law Dictionary32, the word “manufacture” is
defined, inter alia, to mean ‘a thing that is made or built by a human
being (or by a machine), as distinguished from something that is a
product of nature; esp., any material form produced by a machine D
from an unshaped composition of matter’.
39.3.2. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon33, a vast
variety of usages of this expression “manufacture” have been specified,
the relevant parts whereof may be extracted as under:-
E
“‘MANUFACTURE’ implies a change, but every change is not
manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of
treatment labour and manipulation. But something more is
necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different
article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use….
F
Conversion of raw materials into a finished product, e.g. converting
iron ore into steel plate.
Manufacture is : (1) The application, to material, of labour or skill,
whereby the original article is changed to a new, different, and
useful article, provided the process is of a kind popularly regarded
G
as manufacture, or (2) the product of such process.
29
ibid., pp. 1775 and 1776
30
Derived from latin manufactum – ‘made by hand’
31
ibid., p. 871
32
ibid., p. 1109
33
Fifth Edition, Volume 3. P. 3144. H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A “Whatever is made by human labour, either directly or through
the instrumentality of machinery.” (Abott L. Dict.)
*** *** ***
Every alteration in an article does not confer on it a new character
as a manufacture. To constitute a new and different article and a
B manufactured article, it must be so changed as to have a positive
and specific use in its new state.
*** *** ***”
39.4. As noticed, the co-relation of verbs “consumes” and “uses”
C with “manufacture” is framed in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
7-A of the Act with the use of “in”. The word “in” is used in the language
mostly as preposition and adverb34. As regards the aspects relevant on
the phraseology of Section 7-A of the Act, out of the several meanings
assigned to this word “in” in the same Concise Oxford English
Dictionary 35, the relevant could be usefully noticed as being of
D ‘expressing the situation of being enclosed or surrounded by
something; expressing motion that results in being within or
surrounded by something; and expressing inclusion or involvement’.
Thus, one of the relevant usage of the preposition “in” is to indicate
something to be an integral part of an activity. Understood this way, it
E is clear that the two phrases, i.e., “consumes in manufacture” or
“uses in manufacture” denote that the goods in question have been either
consumed or used as an integral part of the activity of manufacture.
39.4.1. For yet further and finer comprehension of the language
employed in the provision in question, we may usefully refer to its later
F amendment w.e.f. 06.11.1997 whereby, even the prepositions were
widened to read “in or for”. The word “for” is essentially used as
preposition but in various phraseologies, it is also used as conjunction
and, amongst several meanings, it has also been assigned the meaning
‘having as a purpose or function’ in the same Concise Oxford English
Dictionary.36 Thus, employing the preposition “for”, inter alia, signifies
G the use of something towards a particular purpose, even without becoming
an integral part of the activity leading to the purpose.
34
The word “in” is also used as suffix and prefix in various expressions with which we
are not concerned in the present case
35
ibid., p. 717
36
H ibid., p. 555.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 927
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

39.4.2. We need not enter deeply into the nitty-gritty of semantics A
but this much is clear that with the said later amendment and modification
of prepositions to “in or for”, coverage is provided in the provision not
only to the activity of use of the particular goods in the manufacture but
also to the activity when the particular goods are merely used for the
manufacture. However, as noticed, this amendment with insertion of the
B
expressions “or for” is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, for
the present purpose, it shall have to be examined if the goods in question
(empty bottles) have either been consumed or been used as an integral
part of the activity of manufacture of other goods for sale.
40. As noticed, several of the meanings of the expressions
“consume” and “consumption” denote using up a particular thing in a C
way that results in complete exhaustion of that thing. On the other hand,
the expression “use” denotes the application or deployment of a particular
thing as a means of achieving something or for accomplishment of a
purpose. Undoubtedly, the word “use” is of wider import than
“consumption”37. D
40.1. In regard to the expressions in question, we may usefully
recount that the earlier existing Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution of India38 provided for “Taxes on the entry of goods
into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein”. While taking
up interpretation of the State enactment made under the said Entry 52, E
this Court dealt with the matter in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
(supra), where cloth pieces of particular length were brought within the
octroi limits of the Municipality concerned and were cut into smaller
pieces of different sizes. This action was held by this Court not amounting
to use or consumption of the cloth within the octroi limits. In that context,
this Court took note of the relevant entry as also the relevant provision F
of the State enactment and said,-
“14…..we hold that mere physical entry of goods into the octroi
limits would not attract levy of octroi unless goods are brought in
for use or consumption or sale. Use and consumption would involve
conversion of the commodity into a different commercial G
commodity by subjecting it to some processing.

37
vide Kathiawar Industries Ltd. (supra)
38
Entry 52 of List II has since been deleted by the Constitution (101st Amendment)
Act, 2016. H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 15. In this appeal, cloth pieces of 100 metres’ length were brought
within the octroi limits and those cloth pieces were cut into smaller
pieces of different sizes. By doing so, no different commercial
commodity is shown to have been produced, so it cannot be said
that there was use or consumption of the cloth within the octroi
limits……..”
B
40.2. Similarly, in the case of HMM Limited (supra), the appellant
dealer had brought the milkfood powder into the limits of respondent
municipality in bulk containers (large steel drums) for being packed in
Bangalore in unit containers (glass bottles) and thereafter exported
outside the municipal limits. In the given fact situation, this Court
C held that there was no ‘sale, consumption, or use’ within the municipal
limits and hence, octroi was not leviable.
40.3. The co-relation as also delicate distinction of these
expressions “use” and “consumption” has been explained by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage
D and Distributing Co. (supra) as follows :-
“23. It is not the immediate person who brings the goods into a
local area who must consume them himself, the act of consumption
may be postponed or may be performed by someone else but so
long as the goods have been brought into the local area for
E consumption in that sense, no matter by whom, they satisfy the
requirements of the Boroughs Act and octroi is payable. Added to
the word “consumption” is the word “use” also. There may be
certain commodities which though put to use are not ‘used
up’ in the process. A motor-car brought into an area for use is
F not used up in the same sense as food- stuffs. The two expressions
use and consumption together therefore, connote the bringing in
of goods and animals not with a view to taking them out again but
with a view to their retention either for use without using them up
or for consumption in a manner which destroys, wastes or uses
them up.”
G
(emphasis in bold supplied)
40.4. Tersely put, the meaning and connotation is clear that while
in “consumption”, a thing shall be used up but in “use”, it may not be
used up as such. To put it in different words, in “use”, a thing shall be
employed for the accomplishment of a purpose but in “consume”, the
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 929
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

thing shall not only be employed but shall also get absorbed or devoured A
in accomplishment of the purpose.
41. As noticed, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the
Act covers both the eventualities i.e., of consumption and of use but
when they take place “in the manufacture of other goods for sale”.
Therefore, now it is necessary to delve into the salient features related B
with the expression “manufacture”.
41.1. As noticed, the relevant dictionary meanings fairly give out
that by “manufacture” what is basically meant is the process by which a
thing is made or built by human or by machine in contradistinction to
what is produced by nature. Ordinarily, it denotes the application of labour C
or skill to material so as to bring out a new, different and useful article in
place of the original one. In regard to this expression “manufacture”, it
shall also be profitable to make a brief reference to the relevant decisions.
41.2. In the case of Kiran Spinning Mills (supra), this Court
dealt with the issue in relation to the Excise Law where the assessee D
was cutting tow fibre into staple fibre i.e., of cutting long fibre into a
short one which resulted in a new and different article of commerce.
However, on the question as to whether a process of “manufacture”
has been undertaken, this Court observed that although the process had
brought about “a change in the substance” but did not “bring into existence
a new substance” and therefore it was held that such cutting involved E
no manufacture. This Court observed and held as follows :
“4. In other words, tow is fibre in running length and staple fibre
is obtained by cutting it into required short length. On an
examination of the material and the contention, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the material which the respondents had F
purchased was already man-made fibre but in running length. All
that the respondents did in relation to it, was to cut it into staple
length after some manual sorting and straightening. The question,
therefore, is whether cutting the long fibre into short fibre resulted
into a new and different article of commerce. Now it is well settled G
how to determine whether there was manufacture or not. This
Court held in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General
Mills: AIR 1963 SC 791 that “manufacture” means to bring into
existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce
some change in a substance (emphasis supplied). It is true that
etymological word “manufacture” properly construed would H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A doubtless cover the transformation but the question is whether
that transformation brings about fundamental change, a new
substance is brought into existence or a new different article having
distinctive name, character or use results from a particular process
or a particular activity. The taxable event under the excise law is
“manufacture”..….In the instant case it is not disputed that what
B
the respondent did, was to cut the running length fibre (tow) into
short length fibre (staple fibre). It indubitably brought a change
in the substance but did not bring into existence a new
substance. The character and use of the substance (man-made
fibre) remained the same….Even by cutting, the respondents
C obtained man-made fibre. Such cutting, therefore, involved no
manufacture and, hence, no duty liability can be imposed upon
them.”
41.3. In the case of Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. (supra), the
question was as to whether printing/decorating of duty-paid plain glazed
D ceramic tiles amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central
Excise Act, 1944. In that context, the Court said that manufacture implies
a change but, every change is not a manufacture; and, for “manufacture”,
there must be transformation and a new article, having distinct name,
character or use, ought to come into existence. Such requirements of
“manufacture” were held not satisfied in the given case. This Court
E said:
“5. The point which falls for consideration in this case is whether
printing/decorating of duty-paid plain glazed ceramic tiles amounts
to manufacture or not in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise
Act, 1944. The process for amounting to manufacture must be
F one which brings into being a new substance known to the market.
Manufacture implies a change but every change is not a
manufacture and yet every change in an article is the result of
some treatment, labour and manipulation. For manufacture,
something more is necessary. There must be transformation and
G a new article must result, having a distinct name, character or
use. These conditions are not satisfied in the instant case because
ceramic glazed tiles remain ceramic glazed wall tiles even after
the process of printing and decorating. Persons dealing in this
commodity recognise the same as wall tiles before and after printing
and decorating. Transformation of a product must be such that it
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 931
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

becomes a commercially different commodity to attract Central A
excise duty and unless a new and distinct article known
commercially to the market emerges, the process will not amount
to manufacture. In the present case no distinct commodity comes
into being as a result of process carried out by the respondent. It
is not the case of the Department that ceramic glazed tiles which
B
are subjected to printing and decoration would be commercially
useless but for the process carried out by the respondent.”
41.4. In the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., this Court
again noted the requirement that in order to decide whether or not a
process amounts to manufacture, the twofold test were as to whether
by the process a different commodity came into existence or the identity C
of the original ceased to exist; and whether the commodity which was
already in existence will serve no purpose but for the said process. In
the given case, by the process of printing names or logos on the bottles,
it was held that the basic character of the commodity did not change and
they continued to be bottles. In the case of Punjab Aromatic (supra), D
this Court indicated that the test of irreversibility is an important criterion
to ascertain as to whether a given process amounts to manufacture.
42. We need not multiply on the citations as the fundamental
principles remain clear that, on the question as to whether manufacture
has taken place or not, the relevant enquiry would be to find if a new E
substance has come into existence which is a different commercial
commodity or whereby identity of the original commodity has ceased to
exist. Tersely put, it is the test of irreversibility that remains fundamental
to a query as to whether manufacture has taken place or not.
43. It has been argued on behalf of the assessee, and rightly so, F
that in the context of the commodities dealt with by it i.e., Beer/IMFL,
the process of bottling is in fact a separate and distinct process than the
manufacture of Beer/IMFL. The decision of this Court in the case of
Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. (supra) is sufficient to be noticed in
this regard wherein it was clearly held that bottling takes place after
brewing of Beer is complete. This Court said as under :- G
“62. It is not in dispute that the process of brewing beer and the
process of bottling beer are considered to be distinct and separate
processes governed respectively by the Brewery Rules and the
Bottling Rules. The operations connected with bottling are required
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A to be conducted in a separate premises under a different licence.
The process of bottling begins with the transfer of bulk beer from
the brewery for bottling. Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A refers
to an allowance to an extent of 10% not only in regard to losses
within the brewery but also to cover losses in bottling and storage.
As noticed above, Rule 53 of the Brewery Rules and Rule 7(11)
B
of the Bottling Rules when read conjointly show that the said
Rules are supplementary to each other and together implement
Section 28-A of the Act. At all events, the validity of neither Rule
53 of the Brewery Rules nor Rule 7(11) of the Bottling Rules is
under challenge. Be that as it may.”
C 43.1. What has been observed in relation to brewing and bottling
of Beer would equally apply to distillation and bottling of IMFL.
44. Applying the relevant tests concerning the expressions
“consumes”, “uses” and “in the manufacture” to the present case, it
remains hardly a matter of doubt that so far the empty bottles are
D concerned, even after being filled with liquor, they remain bottles only,
retaining their original elements including shape, size and character. They
are not “consumed” at all; and there arise no question of they being
“consumed in the manufacture”. Therefore, we have no hesitation in
accepting the submissions of assessee that the bottles in question have
E not been consumed in manufacture of other goods for sale.
44.1. In continuity with the above, we are also inclined to accept
the submission of the assessee that the empty bottles have not even
been “used” in manufacture. This is for the reason that for operation
and application of the phrase “uses in manufacture”, it has to be shown
F that the bottles in question have been deployed as a means of achieving
the purpose of manufacture. As noticed, the phrase “manufacture of
other goods for sale”, in the present case, refers to the goods
manufactured by the assessee, i.e., Beer/IMFL; and, in fact, use of the
bottles in question comes up in the activity of the assessee only after
manufacture of liquor (Beer/IMFL) has already been accomplished by
G brewing or distillation. Needless to reiterate that in relation to the activity
of assessee, the action of bottling is a separate process and is undertaken
only after the process of manufacture by way of brewing or distillation
is complete. Thus understood, we are clearly of the view that the goods
in question (empty bottles) cannot be said to have been “used” in
H manufacture.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 933
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

45. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we have no A
hesitation in concluding that the bottles in question have neither been
consumed in manufacture of Beer/IMFL nor they could be said to have
been used in such manufacture of Beer/IMFL. Hence, elements (i) and
(iii) pertaining to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act
do not exist in this case.
B
46. Taking up elements (ii) and (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 7-A of the Act, we need to enquire as to whether the
goods in question (empty bottles) have been “consumed otherwise” or
they have been “used otherwise”. This area of examination takes us to
the words “or otherwise” used in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
7-A of the Act. In this regard, we need again to look at etymology related C
with the expression in question.
46.1. The expression “otherwise” is essentially used in the texts
as an adverb or as an adjective. Out of the numerous meanings assigned
to this expression in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary39, some of
the relevant meanings are: ‘in other respects; in a different way, D
alternatively.’
46.2. Similarly, in Black’s Law Dictionary40, the expression
“otherwise” is assigned several meanings including ‘in a different way;
in another manner; except for what has just been mentioned; to the
contrary; differently’. E

47. The variety of meanings assigned to the expression “otherwise”
makes one aspect absolutely clear that this expression is intended to
denote something different than the thing/s to which it is employed; and
that this expression is essentially general in nature. In the phraseology of
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, the words “or F
otherwise” have been placed after the particular words “consumes”,
“uses” and “manufacture”. Obviously, these words “or otherwise” are
intended to convey that not only the activities envisaged by the particular
words preceding but, even the other activities would also be covered
thereunder. A question, perforce, arises as to what is intended by the G
Legislature to be the sphere and amplitude of the words “or otherwise”
in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act. This query
takes us to the principles for construction of general words in the statute.
39
Ibid., p.1014
40
Ibid., p.1276 H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A The fundamentals of these principles have been succinctly summarised
in Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh41 as
follows :-
“The normal rule is that general words in a statute must receive a
general construction unless there is something in the Act itself
B such as the subject-matter with which the Act is dealing or the
context in which the said words are used to show the intention of
the Legislature that they must be given a restrictive meaning.
Their import to have wider effect cannot be cut down by arbitrary
addition or retrenchment in language. Since general words have
ordinarily a general meaning, the first task in construing such words,
C as in construing any word, is to give the words their plain and
ordinary meaning and then to see whether the context or some
principle of construction requires that some qualified meaning
should be placed on those words.”
48. The aforesaid general principles are also not decisive of the
D matter because when an expression generally of wide amplitude like
“otherwise” is used, the question still arises about its construction,
particularly when it is placed after particular/specific words. In this
process of construction, one may feel inclined to rely upon and apply the
rule of ejusdem generis whereby and whereunder when a particular
E word pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general
words, the general words are construed as limited to the things of the
same kind as those specified. Even as regards the words “or otherwise”,
in some of the interpretations, they have been treated as limited in their
scope with reference to the context42 but the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay: AIR 1957
F SC 521, while construing the words “or otherwise” occurring in
Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, held
that these words were intended to cover all possible cases of vacancy
occurring due to any reason whatsoever. The Constitution Bench
observed that far from using these words ejusdem generis with the
G preceding clauses, the Legislature had used them in an all-inclusive sense;
and, in the given context and looking to the object and the mischief sought

41
ibid., pp.534-535
42
Like in the cases of S. Prakasha Rao and Anr v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
and Ors.: (1990) 2 SCC 259 and George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty
H Mysore : AIR 1967 SC 849
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 935
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

to be dealt with by the enactment, there was no room for application of A
the rule of ejusdem generis. The Court, inter alia, said as under :
“11….The legislature has been cautious and thorough-going enough
to bar all avenues of escape by using the words “or otherwise”.
Those words are not words of limitation but of extension so as to
cover all possible ways in which a vacancy may occur. Generally B
speaking, a tenant’s occupation of his premises ceases when his
tenancy is terminated by acts of parties or by operation of law or
by eviction by the landlord or by assignment or transfer of the
tenant’s interest. But the legislature, when it used the words “or
otherwise”, apparently intended to cover other cases which may
not come within the meaning of the preceding clauses, for example, C
a case where the tenant’s occupation has ceased as a result of
trespass by a third party. The Legislature, in our opinion, intended
to cover all possible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasons
whatsoever….”
48.1. Likewise, in the case of Western India Plywood Ltd. v. P. D
Ashokan: (1997) 7 SCC 638, where the question was that of
construction of bar over receiving compensation or damages under any
other law in terms of Section 53 of the Employee’s State Insurance Act,
1948, this Court held that the words “or otherwise” indicated that the
section was not limited to ousting the relief claimed only under any statute E
but such wordings disentitled the insured person to make a claim in torts
too, which has the force of law.
48.2. The principles enunciated in the aforesaid cases make it
clear that even the rule of ejusdem generis cannot be picked up and
applied as an abstract proposition whenever general words are used F
after particular words and expressions. As regards the words “or
otherwise”, though, ordinarily, the class or category to be covered thereby
may have to be kindred to the particular class or category preceding
them but, such kinship could be even of general relatedness to the
particular words and need not be that of cognates or agnates or analogues.
G
48.3. In our view, looking to the context as also the object of the
provision in question, as regards the words “or otherwise”, the rule of
ejusdem generis would apply in a very limited sense and only to the
extent that the class or category to be covered thereunder may not be
dissimilar or incongruent to the particular class or category of the
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A expressions preceding it. As already noticed, in the case of Nandanam
Construction Co. (supra), the Constitution Bench has construed these
words “or otherwise” in relation to the pari materia provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Act and held that the expression “otherwise” qualifies
the word “manufacture” and, therefore, consumption of the goods in
question, even if not in manufacture, would lead to coverage for levy of
B
purchase tax. We may usefully reiterate that in Nandanam Construction
Co. (supra), the assessee was engaged in the business of building houses/
flats and had consumed the goods like bricks and sand in such
construction. The Constitution Bench found that such consumption was
clearly a consumption otherwise than manufacture but was covered under
C the provisions for levy of purchase tax. The Constitution Bench also
stated the reason for such construction that the goods in question were
consumed and ceased to exist in their original form so as to be sold in
that original form.
49. Keeping the principle aforesaid in view, we may now take up
D elements (ii) and (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of
the Act. Thus, the question is as to whether the bottles in question have
been “consumed otherwise” or “used otherwise”.
49.1. As already noticed, consumption requires the thing in
question being exhausted or ceasing to exist for being used up. The
E bottles in question, even when used as containers of the liquor
manufactured by the assessee, had neither been exhausted nor had
ceased to exist; they have rather continued to exist while retaining their
basic identity and character as bottles. Of course, they (empty bottles)
had been filled up with liquor but such filling up has not resulted in the
bottles themselves being used up. Hence, the activity in question does
F not fall within the ambit of element (ii). However, the very same logic
does not apply to element (iv) because it cannot be said that the bottles
in question have not been “used otherwise”.
49.2. As noticed, the expression “use” is of wide amplitude and it
refers to the usage or engagement of an article for the accomplishment
G of a purpose irrespective of whether the article itself undergoes a visible
change or not. The fact that the bottles in question have indeed been
used by the assessee in its overall activity of manufacture and sale of
liquor is clear from the fact that the manufacture of liquor by the process
of brewing or distillation did not conclude the activity of the assessee.
H Undoubtedly, for the sale of such manufactured liquor to TASMAC, the
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 937
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

assessee was required to put the same into the bottles; and the sale by A
assessee could have taken place only after such bottling of the liquor.
The assessee has, indisputably, undertaken this process of bottling by
the use of the goods in question, i.e., the empty bottles purchased from
unregistered dealers. Hence, it is but apparent that the goods in question
(empty bottles) have been used by the assessee, and for that matter,
B
have been used for an activity closely connected and co-related with the
main activity of manufacture of liquor as also as necessary ingredient of
the end-purpose of sale of liquor. Significantly, after such use for bottling,
the goods in question (empty bottles) did not remain available for sale in
the form in which they were purchased by the assessee.
49.3. In other words, the process of bottling with the use of bottles C
in question has been an unalienable part of the complete chain of
processes that the assessee was obliged to undertake for its business,
i.e., manufacturing and selling the liquor. By this process, the bottles in
question were used by the assessee in such a manner that they were no
longer available for sale in the form they were purchased from D
unregistered dealers. That being the position, the bottles in question have
indeed been “used otherwise” by the assessee. The assessee cannot
avoid operation of the words “or otherwise” so far use of the bottles is
concerned by merely establishing that they have not been consumed in
manufacture or otherwise and further that they have not been used in
manufacture. Even when these three elements viz., “consumed in E
manufacture”; “consumed otherwise”; and “used in manufacture” do
not exist as regards the bottles in question in the business activity of the
assessee, it is but apparent the activity of the assessee clearly entails the
use of bottles for the purpose of bottling and sale of liquor manufactured
by it. This activity clearly takes the bottles in question within the fourth F
element i.e., “used otherwise”.
49.4. Hence, though the bottles in question have not been
“consumed otherwise”, they have indeed been “used otherwise”; and
therefore, the activity of assessee in relation to the bottles in question is
clearly covered by element (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section G
7-A of the Act.
50. To summarise the discussion aforesaid and to put our views in
a nutshell, the goods in question (empty bottles) have not been consumed
in the manufacture of other goods for sale nor they have been consumed
otherwise because of having retained their identity. They have also not H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A been used in the manufacture of other goods for sale because
manufacture of Beer/IMFL was complete without their use. However,
they have been used for bottling and when bottling remains an integral
part of the business activity of the assessee, i.e., of manufacturing the
liquor by the process of brewing/distillation and then, selling the
manufactured liquor by putting the same in bottles, they have been “used
B
otherwise”. That being the position, use of the goods in question for
bottling takes the turnover of their purchase within the net of Section 7-
A of the Act.
50.1. To put it more simply, if we read clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 7-A of the Act sliced down to the elements “uses in
C manufacture or otherwise”, it is clear that the goods in question (empty
bottles) have been used for bottling, which use, even if not for manufacture,
had been a use otherwise which has been closely connected with the
business of the assessee and whereby the bottles in question did not
remain available for sale in the form in which they were purchased. This
D is the plain and clear operation of the dictum of Constitution Bench in
the case of Nandanam Construction Co. (supra). Hence, applicability
of Section 7-A of the Act is complete and remains beyond the realm of
doubt.
51. Having thus arrived at the conclusion that ingredients (1) to
E (5) and (6)(a) for applicability of Section 7-A (1) are cumulatively satisfied,
the inescapable result is that the turnover in question is exigible to purchase
tax. However, there remains another limb of submissions on the part of
assessee that when the bottles have not been disposed of “in any manner
other than by way of sale in the State” and had been disposed of only by
way of sale to TASMAC within the State of Tamil Nadu itself; and they
F had been subjected to sales tax at the same rate as that of the contents,
purchase tax would not be leviable. This line of submissions on the part
of assessee, in our view, remains entirely baseless.
52. As already noticed, the goods in question (empty bottles) have
been used to complete the process of making the manufactured goods
G (Beer/IMFL) marketable. It is also clear that the bottles have not been
sold by the assessee simply as bottles. They have been sold as an essential
component of the marketable commodity. That being the position, charging
of sales tax on these bottles comes into operation by virtue of Section 3
(1) read with Section 3 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Act. As noticed, the assessee
H is indisputably a dealer covered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 939
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Act. By virtue of sub-section (7) of Section 3, when the assessee has A
sold the goods (Beer/IMFL) together with the bottles as containers or
packing material, turnover of 83 Beer/IMFL was bound to include the
price, cost or value of such bottles whether such price, cost or value had
been charged separately or not; and sales tax was bound to be levied
thereupon at the rate applicable to the goods contained, i.e., Beer/IMFL.
B
The Explanation to Section 3 of the Act puts it beyond doubt that the
expression “containers” includes bottles.
52.1 Another relevant feature of the provisions in question is that
applicability of Section 7-A of the Act has not been made dependent on
the event of levy of sales tax on the goods for which purchase tax is to
be levied. As noticed, levy of purchase tax is dependent on cumulative C
existence of the necessary ingredients of Section 7-A of the Act; and no
exception or exclusion is provided with reference to the factum of levy
of sales tax on the goods in question at the time of their sale. In fact, not
much of elaborate discussion in this regard appears requisite, for a direct
answer being available in a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the D
case of Premier Breweries (supra) wherein, pari materia provisions
of the Kerala Act as regards levy of sales tax were considered. In the
said case of Premier Breweries, the appellant had sold liquor packed in
cardboard cartons. It was contended that such cardboard cartons had
already borne tax under the entry “paper other than the newsprint
cardboard and their products” and hence, such cartons could not have E
been taxed again when sold along with Beer. This Court examined sub-
sections (5) and (6) of Section 5 of the Kerala Act, which had been
more or less akin to sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Act, and negatived the contention of the dealer. The relevant
paragraphs of the said decision, taking note of sub-sections (5) and (6) F
of Section 5 of the Kerala Act and rejecting this part of the contentions
of assessee, could be usefully noticed as follows (at pp.602 and 607-608
of STC):-
“5. Before examining the decisions, it will be useful to refer to the
relevant provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Tax on G
sale or purchase of goods has been imposed by section 5 of the
Act. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 5 of the Act provide:
“5. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1) or
sub-section (2), but subject to sub-section (6), where goods sold
are contained in containers or are packed in any packing materials, H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A the rate of tax and the point of levy applicable to the containers or
packing materials, as the case may be, shall, whether the price of
the containers or packing materials is charged separately or not,
be the same as those applicable to goods contained or packed,
and in determining turnover of the goods, the turnover in respect
of the containers or packing materials shall be included therein.
B
(6) Where the sale or purchase of goods contained in any containers
or packed in any packing materials is exempt from tax, then the
sale or purchase of such containers or packing materials shall
also be exempt from tax.”
C *** *** ***
22. We shall now deal with another point urged on behalf of the
appellant. It has been contended that the cardboard cartons have
already borne tax under the entry “paper, other than the newsprint,
cardboard and their products” in the First Schedule of the Act. It
D is a single-point tax. The cardboard cartons cannot be taxed once
again when sold along with the beer.
23. There are two answers to this contention. Sub-section (5) of
section 5 specifically provides that the rate of tax and point of
levy applicable to the containers shall be the same as those
E applicable to the goods sold. Therefore, even if the cartons have
already been subjected to tax by virtue of specific provision of
section 5(5) they will be liable to tax at the same point and at the
same rate as the goods contained therein.
24. Moreover, the packing materials as such are not being taxed
F under sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act. The subject-matter
of tax are the goods packed in the containers. In calculating the
turnover of the goods, packing materials will have to be taken into
account. The packing materials will be taxed at the same rate and
at the same point as the goods contained in the packing material.
This is because the goods are sold packed in containers and are
G charged accordingly. This is a rule of computation of the turnover
of the goods. If no tax is ultimately found leviable on the goods
then no tax can be levied on the containers in which the goods are
contained.”
52.2 As already noticed, this question was also examined by the
H High Court in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra)
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 941
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

although the said decision was rendered in relation to the bottles used A
for packing of I.V. fluid and the provision examined therein was that as
existing after amendment of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-
A with insertion of the words “or for” but, such amendment is of no
effect so far as this limb of contentions is concerned. In the said decision,
the High Court repelled such a contention against levy of purchase tax
B
on bottles because of the bottles being subjected to sales tax when being
sold with I.V. fluid while observing that such sales tax was nevertheless
leviable even in relation to the bottles which were purchased from a
registered dealer after payment of sales tax. The relevant portion in
paragraph 11 of the said decision of the High Court in Appollo Saline
Pharmaceuticals (extracted in paragraph 20.2 hereinbefore) obviously C
conforms to the ratio of Premier Breweries (supra), which, in our view,
is a direct and complete answer to the contention of the assessee. As
noticed, in the entire scheme of Section 7-A of the Act, nowhere any
exception is provided that if a particular commodity or goods would be
subjected to sales tax in the event of their sale, they may not be liable to
D
purchase tax. On the contrary, as rightly observed by the High Court,
even if the bottles had been purchased after payment of sales tax, the
turnover of such purchase was nevertheless required to be included in
the total turnover at the time of sale of the contents with the containers.
52.3 In other words, the fact that the bottles in question were
subjected to sales tax at the same rate as applicable to their contents is E
entirely irrelevant and has no bearing on the exigibility of the turnover in
question to purchase tax. In this regard, we may also observe that even
though the provision relating to the purchase tax was initially inserted to
plug the loss of revenue in relation to the goods that were consumed in
manufacture or were consumed otherwise, its scope and amplitude has F
been widened with insertion of the expression “or uses” and thereby, not
only consumption but even use in manufacture or use otherwise of the
goods has been made subject to the levy of purchase tax. We need not
expand more on these aspects of the matter. Suffice it to observe for the
present purpose that merely because the bottles in question were to be
subjected to sales tax, when being sold as containers of the liquor, liability G
of purchase tax cannot be obviated.
52.4. To put it differently, it is apparent that so far as sales tax on
the bottles in question at the time of their sale is concerned, the same is
leviable by virtue of Section 3 (7) of the Act and there is nothing in
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Section 7-A to even suggest that levy of sales tax at the time of sale of
the goods in question would exclude them from the net of purchase tax.
That being the position, the second limb of submissions on the part of
assessee turns out to be hollow and baseless, and cannot be accepted.
53. Therefore, the final result of the discussion aforesaid is that
B purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act is leviable on the purchase
turnover of empty bottles purchased by the assessee in the course of its
business of manufacture and sale of Beer and IMFL.
OPERATION AND EFFECT OF DEPARTMENT’S
CLARIFICATIONS/CIRCULARS
C 54. As noticed, the High Court in its impugned order dated
10.09.2004 did reach to the conclusion that purchase tax was leviable on
the purchase turnover of the empty bottles but found the assessee entitled
to the benefit of Clarifications/Circulars issued by the revenue on
09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000. The revenue has questioned this part of the
D order of the High Court on the grounds and contentions as noticed
hereinabove. In order to examine the rival contentions in this regard and
the correctness of proposition adopted by the High Court, we may take
note of the statutory provision in the Tamil Nadu Act on the power of the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue clarification as also the
particular Clarifications/Circulars relevant to the present case.
E
55. Section 28-A came to be inserted to the Tamil Nadu Act by
way of its amendment by Act No. 60 of 1997 w.e.f. 06.11.1997. This
Section 28-A reads as under :
“28-A. Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of
F Commercial Taxes. –
(1) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on an application by
a registered dealer, may clarify any point concerning the rate of
tax under the Act. Such clarification shall be applicable to the
goods specified in the application :
G Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is
accompanied by proof of payment of such fee, paid in such manner,
as may be prescribed.
(2) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may, if he considers
it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of uniformity in
H the work of assessment and collection of tax, clarify any point
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 943
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

concerning the rate of tax under this Act or the procedure relating A
to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under this
Act.
(3) All persons working under the control of Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes shall observe and follow the clarification issued
under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2).” B
55.1. Prior to the insertion of the aforesaid Section 28-A in the
Tamil Nadu Act, the SCCT had issued Clarification dated 09.11.1989 in
regard to the issue of levy of purchase tax on empty bottles in the
following terms :
“The Spl. Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, C
Madras 5 letter No. Acts Cell I/D. Dis. 105980/88 dated 9.11.1989.
Sub : TNGST ACT 1959 – Amendment of Section 7A-Levy of
Purchase tax on empty bottles for backing (sic) IMFL – Whether
attracts – clarified.
D
Ref: Your letter No.9142/88 B2 dated 23.9.88.
As it is stated that sale value of the bottles is subjected to tax at
the time of sale of the contents there is no liability to tax under
Section 7(A).
2. This cancels the clarification issued in this office D.Dis. Acts E
cell I/136907/88 dated 17.1.89.
Sd/- S. Savarkar,
For Spl. Commr. And Commr of Comml Taxes.”
55.2. After insertion of the aforesaid Section 28-A and in relation F
to the request further made by the assessee, the PCCT proceeded
to issue Clarification dated 27.12.2000, practically reiterating the earlier
opinion in the following terms:-
“COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
FROM TO G
THIRU P.C. CYRIAC, I.A.S., Tvl. Mohan Breweries and
Principle Commissioner and Distilleries Ltd.,
Commissioner of Commercial Rayala Towers,
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Taxes II Floor,
Chepauk, 781-85 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 005 Chennai – 600 002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B D. DIS. ACTS CELL II/52900/2000 DATED : 27.12.2000
CLARIFICATION NO.192/2000
Sir,
Sub : TNGST Act 1959 – Clarification on rate of tax for purchase
of old/used bottles for filling beer/IMFL products – requested –
C
reg.
Ref : From Tvl. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., Chennai-
2. Lr. Dt. 13.7.2000.
Tvl. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., Chennai-2, in
D their letter cited have requested clarification for the years 1991-
92, 93-94, 94-95 and 95-96 in respect of purchase of old bottles
assessed to tax under section 7-A of the TNGST Act, 1959.
The details furnished by the petitioners have been perused
and the following clarification on rate of tax is issued :
E In this office reference D.Dis.Acts Cell.I/105980/88,
dt.9.11.89, it has been clarified that “if the sale value of bottles is
subjected to tax at the time of sale of the contents. there is no
liability to tax under section 7- A”. Perhaps, your company did not
made it clear that the sale value of the bottle was also included in
F the price of the product. Now that you have clarified this point
specifically, that the value of empty bottles also has been included
in the sale price of the product, the clarification issued in Acts
Cell II/105980/89, dt. 9.11.89 will apply to IMFL/Beer.
Sd/- P. C. Cyriac,
Principal Commissioner and Commissioner
G
of Commercial Taxes.”
55.3. Further, after the decision of the Tribunal in Appollo
Saline Pharmaceuticals: 120 STC 493, the SCCT issued another
Clarification dated 28.01.2002 in modification of the earlier Clarification
dated 27.12.2000 and stated that the purchase in question was liable to
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 945
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

tax under Section 7-A of the Act. This Clarification dated 28.01.2002 A
reads as under :
“COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
From To
Thiru Arun Ramanathan,I.A.S., Tvl. Mohan Breweries and
Special Commissioner and Distilleries Limited, B
Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Rayala Towers, IInd Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 781-85 Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C
Acts Cell – II/6914/2002, Dt. 28.1.2002
Sir,
SUB : TNGST ACT 1959 – Clarification on rate of tax for
purchase of old/used bottles for filling beer/IMFL Products – Issued
– Modified. D
Ref : PC & CCT. Chennai – 6, D. Dis. Acts Cell-I/52900/
2000, Dated :27.12.2000.
In this office reference cited it was clarified to Tvl. Mohan
Breweries and Distilleries Limited, Chennai-2 as follows :-
E
“In this Office Ref. D. Dis. Acts Cell-I/105980/88 Dated :
9.11.89, it has been clarified that “if the sale value of bottles
is subjected to tax at the time of sale of the contents, there
is no liability to tax under Section 7-A. Perhaps, your
company did not make it clear that the sale value of bottle
was also included in the price of the product. Now that you F
have clarified this point specifically, that the value of empty
bottles also has been included in the sale price of the product,
the clarification issued in Acts Cell-I/105980/89,
Dated:9.11.89 will apply to IMFL/Beer.”
The issue has been re-examined in the light of the decision G
of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in the case of Appollo
Saline Pharmaceuticals Private Limited reported in 120 STC.
P.493, and the clarification issued in the reference cited is modified
as below :
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A It is hereby clarified that purchase of empty bottles from
un-registered dealers used for the packing of Beer/IMFL
manufactured by Tvl. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited,
Chennai is liable to tax under section 7-A as per decision reported
in 120 STC Page 493.
B (Sd.) Arun Ramanathan,
Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes.”
(underlining in original)
56. As noticed, in support of its conclusion that the revenue cannot
C refuse the benefit of Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 to
the assessee, the High Court has relied upon various decisions including
that of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Dhiren
Chemical Industries (supra). The learned counsel for the assessee
has additionally relied upon several other decisions as mentioned
hereinbefore.43 On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the revenue
D that Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 were merely
administrative in nature and had no binding force on a Quasi-judicial
Authority or a Court of law; and that as per dictum of the Constitution
Bench in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra), the law declared
by the Court as regards the issue at hand would remain binding and not
E the said Clarifications.
57. Having regard to the reasoning of High Court and the
contentions of rival parties as also for dealing with the operation and
effect of the Clarifications/Circulars aforesaid, we need to imbibe the
principles enunciated in the binding decisions of this Court, particularly
F the dictum in two Constitution Bench decisions in Dhiren Chemical
Industries44 and Ratan Melting & Wire Industries45.
57.1. In Dhiren Chemical Industries (supra), the questions
referred to the Constitution Bench were relating to the interpretation of
the phrase “on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already
G been paid”; and operation of the exemption notification issued by the
Central Government, exempting iron or steel products made out of fresh
unused re-rollable scrap if appropriate amount of duty had already been
paid. In the context of such questions and the exemption notification
43
Vide paragraph 11.1 ibid.
44
Rendered on 12.12.2001
45
H Rendered on 14.10.2008
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 947
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

calling for interpretation, though the Constitution Bench placed the A
interpretation in favour of the revenue but also observed as follows (at
p. 125 of STC):
“11. We need to make it clear that, regardless of the interpretation
that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars
which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and B
Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said
phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue.”
57.2. The aforesaid observations in Dhiren Chemical Industries
led to certain misunderstanding as regards operation and effect of the
circulars and as to whether effect can be given to the circular of the C
Government in preference to the binding precedents of High Court and
of this Court. This led to the other reference to the Constitution Bench
and the issue came to be resolved in the case of Ratan Melting & Wire
Industries (supra).
57.3. In Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra), the D
Constitution Bench referred to the above-quoted observations in Dhiren
Chemical Industries and also noted that those observations had been
explained in another decision in the case of Kalyani Packaging
Industries v. Union of India: (2004) 6 SCC 719. The Constitution
Bench observed and noted as follows:-
E
“3. …… In Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India it
was noted as follows: (SCC p. 721, para 6)
“6. We have noticed that para 11 of Dhiren Chemical case is
being misunderstood. It, therefore, becomes necessary to clarify
para 11 of Dhiren Chemical case. One of us (Variava, J.) F
was a party to the judgment of Dhiren Chemical case and
knows what was the intention in incorporating para 11. It must
be remembered that law laid down by this Court is law of the
land. The law so laid down is binding on all courts/tribunals
and bodies. It is clear that circulars of the Board cannot prevail
over the law laid down by this Court. However, it was pointed G
out that during hearing of Dhiren Chemical case because of
the circulars of the Board in many cases the Department had
granted benefits of exemption notifications. It was submitted
that on the interpretation now given by this Court in Dhiren
Chemical case the Revenue was likely to reopen cases. Thus
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A para 11 was incorporated to ensure that in cases where benefits
of exemption notification had already been granted, the
Revenue would remain bound. The purpose was to see that
such cases were not reopened. However, this did not mean
that even in cases where the Revenue/Department had already
contended that the benefit of an exemption notification was
B
not available, and the matter was sub judice before a court or
a tribunal, the court or tribunal would also give effect to circulars
of the Board in preference to a decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court. Where as a result of dispute the matter is
sub judice, a court/tribunal is, after Dhiren Chemical case,
C bound to interpret as set out in that judgment. To hold otherwise
and to interpret in the manner suggested would mean that courts/
tribunals have to ignore a judgment of this Court and follow
circulars of the Board. That was not what was meant by para
11 of Dhiren Chemical case.”
D 57.4. Taking note of the above and clarifying the law on the subject,
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries
(supra) laid down the principles in no uncertain terms as follows :
“7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt
binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but
E when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the
law on the question arising for consideration, it would not
be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should
be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision
of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/
circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State
F Government are concerned they represent merely their
understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not
binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what
the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the
executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is
G contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence
in law.”
(emphasis in bold supplied)
58. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra), there
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 949
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

remains hardly any doubt on the principles that Clarifications/Circulars/ A
Instructions issued by the competent authority are binding on the
authorities under the respective statutes but so far as declaration of law
in regard to any particular statutory provision is concerned, the view
expressed in the binding decision of this Court or the High Court is to be
given effect to; and no direction can be issued to enforce a clarification
B
or circular contrary to the declaration of law by the Courts.
59. In view of the above, the decisions relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the assessee do not require much dilation. However,
we may refer to a few representative decisions as infra.
59.1. In the case of Trans Asian Shipping (supra), reference to C
the circular was made by this Court only after declaration of law while
indicating that the circular clarified the need and essence of the provisions
when such circular was issued contemporaneously by the Central Board
of Direct Taxes with introduction of the provisions of Section 115-VF
and 115-VG in the Income Tax Act, 1961. As regards the circular, this
Court observed as under :- D

“30. We would also like to refer to Circular No.05/2005 dated
15-7-2005 explaining the need and essence of the introduction of
these provisions which was issued contemporaneously by the
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Circular clarifies
that the Scheme is a “preferential regime of taxation”. It also E
clarifies that “charging provision is under Section 115-VA read
with Section 115-VF and Section 115-VG”. Circulars of CBDT
explaining the scheme of the Act have been held to be binding on
the Department repeatedly by this Court in a series of judgments
…...” F
59.2. In Signode India (supra), the circular concerned was
explanatory of the expression “cargo handling services” as defined in
Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 and was standing in conformity
with the statutory provision.
Therein, this Court observed as under :- G
“11. There is yet another aspect of the case which would require
a mention. In a Circular bearing No.F.No.B.11/1/2002-TRU dated
1-8-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs,
services liable to tax under the category of “cargo handling
services”, have been clarified to mean services provided by cargo H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A handling agencies which is, in effect what Section 65(105)(zr)
provides for.”
59.3. In the case of India Cements Limited (supra), this Court
noticed the declaration of law by the Constitution Bench in the case of
Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (supra) that a circular which is
B contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. In
India Cements Limited, the circular in question was not found to be in
conflict with any statutory provision or the applicable schemes and,
therefore, the same was held binding on the adjudicating authority in the
following words: –
C “30. In the present case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the
Circular dated 1-5-2000 is in conflict with either any statutory
provision or the deferral schemes announced under the
aforementioned government orders. We, therefore, hold that the
said circular is binding in law on the adjudicating authority under
the TNGST Act.”
D
60. The aforesaid and other decisions, essentially dealing with
exemption notifications, have no application to the present case; and in
any event, none of the decisions, as referred on behalf of the assessee
or as referred by the High Court, could be read for any principle contrary
to that laid down by the Constitution Bench in Ratan Melting & Wire
E Industries (supra).
61. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we need not
examine as to whether the Clarifications/Circulars in question could be
said to be such clarification as envisaged by Section 28-A of the Act
because even if the Clarifications/Circulars in question are treated to be
F those authorised by Section 28-A, they cannot have any effect over and
above the interpretation of Section 7-A of the Act by the Courts. In
other words, applicability of Section 7-A to the turnover in question could
only be decided on the interpretation of the provision and its application
to the given fact situation and not on the basis of Clarifications/Circulars
G in question. Put differently, the so-called Clarifications dated 09.11.1989
and 27.12.2000 had not been of explaining the meaning of any doubtful
term or expression in the statutory provision nor they were explaining
the object and purport of the provision concerned. The said Clarifications/
Circulars had merely been the expression of the understanding of the
concerned officer, be it SCCT or PCCT, about operation of Section 7-A
H
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 951
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

of the Act vis-à-vis the purchase turnover of the empty bottles purchased A
by the assessee. However, such understanding of the officer concerned
turns out to be a pure misunderstanding, when it stands at contradiction
or incongruous to the declaration of law by the Courts; and could only be
ignored. The latest Circular of the year 2002, issued after decision of the
jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals
B
(supra) could also be read only to the extent it is in conformity with the
decision of the Tribunal (that came to be approved by the High Court)
and in any case, even this circular cannot be decisive of the interpretation
of Section 7-A of the Act. The decisive interpretation shall only be the
one which is rendered in the binding decision/s of the Court. In continuity,
we may also observe that various other decisions referred on behalf of C
the assessee, that modification of any particular circular or guideline or
policy decision could only be made effective prospectively, have no
application whatsoever to the present case.
62. In the aforesaid view of matter, we have no hesitation in
concluding that the High Court, after having found that purchase tax D
was leviable on the turnover in question under Section 7-A of the Act,
could not have issued directions for any benefit to the assessee with
reference to the Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000,
particularly when such Clarifications/Circulars do not stand in conformity
with the statutory provision and its interpretation by the Courts.
E
63. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, on the second
question as regards the operation and effect of Clarifications/Circulars
dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000, cannot be approved.
64. The net result of the discussion foregoing is that the purchase
turnover of the empty bottles purchased by the assessee from the F
unregistered dealers under bought note is exigible to purchase tax under
Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act; and the assessee cannot escape
such liability on the strength of the Clarifications/Circulars dated
09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 which do not stand in conformity with the
statutory provision as also declaration of law by the Courts.
G
Other Question
65. So far as the other question regarding taxability of cash discount
on the price offered by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited is concerned, the High Court has ruled in favour of
the assessee with reference to the decision in the case of Neyvli Lignite
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A Corporation Ltd. and the clear expressions in Explanation 2(iii) to
Section 2(r) of the Act.
65.1. The relevant provision reads as under:-
“Section 2(r).- “turnover” means the aggregate amount
for which goods are bought or sold, or delivered or supplied or
B otherwise disposed of in any of the ways referred to in clause (n),
by a dealer either directly or through another, on his own account
or on account of others whether for cash or for deferred payment
or other valuable consideration, provided that the proceeds of the
sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, other
C than tea, and rubber (natural rubber, latex and all varieties and
grades of raw rubber) grown within the State by himself or on
any land in which he has an interest whether as owner,
usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded
from his turnover.
D *** *** ***
Explanation (2) Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if
any, as may be prescribed in this behalf-
*** *** ***
(iii) any cash or other discount on the price allowed in respect of
E
any sale and any amount refunded in respect of articles returned
by customers shall not be included in the turnover;
*** *** ***”
65.2. In view of the clear phraseology of the above extracted
F Explanation, not much of discussion appears requisite as regards this
issue that has rightly been decided by the High Court in favour of the
assessee and not much of serious contentions have been put forward by
the revenue in this regard. The impugned order of the High Court, to this
extent, calls for no interference.
G CONCLUSION
66. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue (Civil
Appeal No. 7164 of 2013) is partly allowed by holding that the purchase
turnover of the empty bottles purchased by the assessee from the
unregistered dealers under bought note is exigible to purchase tax under
H Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act; and the assessee cannot escape
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR. v. MOHAN BREWERIES 953
AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

such liability on the strength of the Clarifications/Circulars dated A
09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000. As a necessary consequence, the appeal
filed by the assessee (Civil Appeal No. 7165 of 2013) is dismissed.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014
67. This set of appeals by the assessee pertaining to assessment
years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, directed against the B
common order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the High Court in a batch of
tax revision petitions, involves essentially the same question on the
applicability of Section 7-A of the Act against the assessee.
68. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects relating to these
appeals had been that by the respective assessment order pertaining to C
the said assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 the
AO held the assessee liable for purchase tax against the purchase of
empty bottles from unregistered dealers and also levied penalty on various
scores like turnover relating to excise duty and vend fees as also the
turnover relating to purchase tax. After the respective orders passed by D
the Appellate Authority, the matters ultimately travelled to the Tribunal
in cross appeals preferred by the assessee and by the State. The Tribunal,
by its common order dated 09.09.2002, decided various issues including
those relating to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act and levy of
penalty in relation to the turnover pertaining to excise duty, vend fee and
purchase tax. So far the issue relating to purchase tax was concerned, E
the Tribunal took the view that the assessee was liable for purchase tax
under Section 7-A of the Act while relying upon the decision of the High
Court in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (supra) and of this Court in
Premier Breweries (supra).
69. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal, the assessee F
filed Tax Revision petitions, being Tax Case (Revisions) Nos. 1667,1669,
1857 of 2008 and 13 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court, by
its impugned common order dated 05.12.2013, has partly allowed the
said petitions while deciding the issues pertaining to penalty in favour of
the assessee but, has dismissed the same in relation to the levy of G
purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act. In regard to the issue of
purchase tax, the High Court relied on the reasoning given in its earlier
order dated 10.09.2004 for assessment year 1996-97, which we have
taken note of hereinbefore. The assessee has, therefore, assailed the
said common order dated 05.12.2013 insofar as the High Court has
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A confirmed its liability towards purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act
for the aforesaid assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-
90 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014.
70. What has been discussed and held hereinbefore in relation to
order dated 10.09.2004, equally applies to this set of appeals too.
B Therefore, the High Court has rightly decided the issue of levy of purchase
tax against the assessee in its order dated 05.12.2013 and no case for
interference at the instance of the assessee is made out.
71. Accordingly, Civil Appeal Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014 filed by the
assessee stand dismissed.
C
Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H