Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1113 (GAU)

Data Plus Info Channel v. State of Assam

2012-09-17

A.K.GOEL, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a proprietorship concern, seeking, inter alia, sales tax exemption in respect of production of computer stationery under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997 and Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005 in terms of the industrial policies of Assam issued by the State Government from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of boosting industrial development of this region, the Government of India as well as the State of Assam had been issuing various industrial policies from time to time and granted several incentives including exemption on various kinds of taxes. In 1997, the Government of Assam announced an industrial policy which spelt out various incentives, and one such incentive was giving sales tax exemption to the industries engaged in certain manufacturing activities. As per the said exemption, all new industries and existing industries going in for expansion/diversification/modernization would be granted sales tax exemption on sale of finished products and purchase of raw materials as per the scale mentioned therein. In pursuance of the aforesaid Industrial Policy, the Governor of Assam, in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (4) of section 9 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, framed the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997 for grant of relief by way of sales tax exemption to the eligible industrial units. Subsequently, in the year 2003, the Government of Assam issued another industrial policy giving various other incentives including sales tax exemption which was granted under the earlier industrial policy. 2. Upon enactment of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, a new scheme was introduced substituting the earlier Scheme of 1997 framed under the old industrial policy, which is known as the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005 under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and continued the earlier sales tax exemption by way of remission of tax. Under the aforesaid Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, it has been, however, provided that certain categories shall not be eligible for such benefit under the Scheme which included "paper cutting from roll paper". 3. The petitioner states that pursuant to the aforesaid industrial policy of Assam, the petitioner set up a small-scale industrial unit for manufacturing finished products, namely, battery, inverter, UPS, computer continuous addicting rolls, fax rolls, printer, ribbon, etc. 4. 3. The petitioner states that pursuant to the aforesaid industrial policy of Assam, the petitioner set up a small-scale industrial unit for manufacturing finished products, namely, battery, inverter, UPS, computer continuous addicting rolls, fax rolls, printer, ribbon, etc. 4. After completing all the necessary formalities, the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate for claim of incentives under the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1997 and claiming sales tax exemption under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997 and Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005. 5. The petitioner states that due to changed circumstances, the petitioner modernized the industrial unit and limited its manufacturing activities to production of computer stationery which went into commercial production after expansion on April 16, 2005 and accordingly, applied for eligibility certificate under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997, which however, has been kept pending by the authorities. 6. The petitioner states that since the aforesaid manufacturing activities of the petitioner relating to computer stationery did not fall under any of the items under the negative list, on the bona fide belief that the petitioner would be granted eligibility certificate for claiming benefits of exemption, continued to assess at the concessional rate of tax under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997 and Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005 and passed on the said benefits to its customers. The petitioner states that after considerable delay, the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam, issued the eligibility certificate to the petitioner in respect of the incentives, namely, State capital investment subsidy and subsidy on captive power generation. However, as regards the grant of incentives under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, nothing was mentioned in the said eligibility certificate and he was not informed about the rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of incentives under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, which the petitioner was entitled to receive. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice of demand for the assessment year 2005-06 demanding a sum of Rs. 3,13,676 which comprised of an amount of Rs. 1,75,123 towards tax payable and a sum of Rs. 1,40,256 towards interest payable. On receipt of the said demand notice, the petitioner informed the assessing authority that the petitioner's application for the grant of incentives under the Assam Industries: (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, was under consideration. 3,13,676 which comprised of an amount of Rs. 1,75,123 towards tax payable and a sum of Rs. 1,40,256 towards interest payable. On receipt of the said demand notice, the petitioner informed the assessing authority that the petitioner's application for the grant of incentives under the Assam Industries: (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, was under consideration. However, the assessing authority by stating that the petitioner had failed to submit the eligibility and entitlement certificate in support his claim, issued a show-cause notice as to, why the petitioner's turnover shall not be assessed to tax under section 37 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005. 7. After receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner requested the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit C, Guwahati, to intimate the reasons for which the petitioner was not extended the benefit of sales tax exemption. The petitioner was later on informed by the office of the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam, intimating that the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam has not considered the, petitioner's request for sales tax exemption for the petitioner's unit vide letter dated January 27, 2009 as the authorities did not consider the petitioner's unit to be an industrial unit engaged in manufacturing. The aforesaid letter dated January 27, 2009, which provides the cause of action for filing the present writ petition, may be reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation of the issue involved. Government of Assam Office of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati. No. CTS-36/(Ind.)/2008/11 Dated the 27th January, 2009 From: Shri Sanjay Lohiya, IAS Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati. To: The Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam, Udhyog Bhawan, Guwahati-21. Sub: Application for grant of E. C. of M/s. Dataplus info Channel, Tarun Nagar, Ghy-5 under expansion programme. Ref: DICC's Memo No. DICC/KMRP/US/EC-03/(EXPN)/587/05/786-89 dated April 23, 2008. Sir, With reference to the above, it is informed that an enquiry on the matter was caused through our concerned Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati Unit C. It is seen, from the enquiry report, that:-- (1) The dealer's activity essentially seems to be; cutting paper from paper roll, perforating the cut paper and pasting carbon sheet along-with, for use as computer and fax stationary. Paper cutting from roll paper was in the negative list in the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Scheme, 1997 and hence, consequentially also in the Tax Remission Scheme, 2005. (2) Apart from above, the entire activity of obtaining computer and fax stationery through the minor processing undertaken by the applicant does not amount to manufacture in the true sense of the term. Hence, it appears that the industrial unit is not eligible for sales tax concession. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 8. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid decision of the authorities by stating that since the petitioner was earlier found eligible for claiming sales tax exemption under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1997 for manufacturing computer stationery, the decision of the authorities that the industrial unit of the petitioner is not eligible for sales tax exemption as it was not engaged in manufacture in the true sense of the term, is not sustainable. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the negative list mentioned in the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005 was specifically limited to those which are mentioned therein and the same cannot be allowed to be expanded by way of inference to include other industries within the negative list. It is the case of the petitioner that the industrial unit of the petitioner is undertaking manufacturing activity of "computer stationery" which cannot be said to be an industrial unit engaged in the activity of "paper cutting from roll paper" as alleged by the authorities. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of manufacturing of computer stationery, raw materials like paper reels of different sizes, GSM, color, and quality, different sizes one-time carbon, ink, other printing materials, cartoon, wrapper, poly bag, etc., and other packing goods are used. 11. According to the petitioner, for production of computer stationery, certain mechanical processes are involved in which the following machineries are required to complete the process. (i) Duplex type slitter machine. (ii) Rotary blank master machine. (iii) Plate exposing machine. (iv) Rotary paper converter and printing machine. (v) Multi-part collector machine with printing facility. (vi) Collector machine for 5 part paper with numbering facility. (vii) Shrink pack machine. (viii) Strapping machine. (ix) Strapping machine 12. According to the petitioner, the following processes are involved to get the end-products of computer stationery. (ii) Rotary blank master machine. (iii) Plate exposing machine. (iv) Rotary paper converter and printing machine. (v) Multi-part collector machine with printing facility. (vi) Collector machine for 5 part paper with numbering facility. (vii) Shrink pack machine. (viii) Strapping machine. (ix) Strapping machine 12. According to the petitioner, the following processes are involved to get the end-products of computer stationery. (i) The raw paper reels in different sizes, quality, colour, GSM are print re-sized by the duplex slitter machine (if required). (ii) The ready resized papers are subjected to side punching, horizontal, vertical perforation, zik-zak folding numbering, logo or any other printing, if required. (iii) The ready zik-zak pack is then implanted with one time carbon roll for multipart paper, from 1+1 to 1+4 part by the collector machine. (iv) After that the packets are wrapped in paper sheets and then shrink packed through shrink pack machine to protect them from humidity. (v) These are then packed by strapping machine for dispatch after necessary printing. 13. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the process of manufacturing computer stationery is undertaken through a series of mechanical processes complying with certain specifications and is not merely a simple paper cutting process from roll paper. It involves several stages to complete the process to produce the final product and is not merely mechanically cutting the paper roll into the required size. 14. It was also submitted that the characteristics of the finished products are different from the raw materials and there is change in the shape and size also. 15. It was also contended that there is a value addition on the raw materials processed to get the finished products. 16. It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that even though paper is used as one of the raw materials, the process involved in bringing out the final product of computer stationery comprises of several processing activities along with the input of raw materials like carbon paper, producing a new product and thus would qualify within the definition of "manufacture" under section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 17. 17. Therefore, the crux of the issue involved in the present writ petition, is whether manufacturing of computer stationery as claimed by the petitioner, would amount to "manufacture" as defined under section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, without being included under the negative list/entry of "paper cutting from roll paper", so as to entitle the petitioner tax exemption. 18. Section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 which provides an inclusive definition of the expression, "manufacture" is as follows: 2. (30) 'manufacture' includes any activity that brings out a change in an article or articles as a result of some process, treatment, labour and results in transformations into a new and different article so understood in commercial parlance having a distinct name, character use, but does not include such activity of manufacture as may be prescribed. 19. From the aforesaid definition, any activity, to qualify as "manufacture", the following attributes' must be discernible in it: (i) It brings out a change in the article. (ii) Some processes, treatment, labour must be involved. (iii) It results in transformation into a new and different article. (iv) Carries a distinct name, character, use in commercial parlance. 20. However, before we proceed to examine whether the activity carried out by the petitioner-firm amounts to manufacture as per the definition provided under the Act, we may also examine as to what is "manufacture" as understood in the legal parlance, for which we may refer, to some of the Supreme Court decisions. 21. One such landmark decision dealing with the expression "manufacture" with reference to taxation law was rendered by the honourable Supreme Court in Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India [1987] 64 STC 42 (SC); [1986] 162 ITR 846 (SC); [1985] 3 SCC 314, wherein it held that (paras 58, 59, 63 and 64 in 64 STC): 33. It may be noted that, the taxable event in the context of sales tax law is 'sale'. The taxable event under the excise law is 'manufacture'. The moment, there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes 'manufacture' takes place and-liability to duty is attracted. The taxable event under the excise law is 'manufacture'. The moment, there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes 'manufacture' takes place and-liability to duty is attracted. Though in, the facts of that case perhaps it was not necessary and as such the attention, of the court was not drawn to the definition of the term 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act nor was the Tariff Item No. 1B, placed, before the court. 34. This decision was referred to and followed in the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124 (SC); [1981] 1 SCC 653; [1981], SCC (Tax) 51. Whatever may be the operation, it is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is material for the purpose of determining whether, the operation constitutes such a process which will be part of 'manufacture'. Any process or processes creating something else having a distinctive name, character and use would be manufacture. 41. It may, however, be pointed out, that when Darling, J. dealt with the example of a carpenter, the learned Judge thought it was right that it could not be said that when 'box' is prepared that the carpenter was manufacturing 'wood' but transforming 'wood' into 'box' would certainly be manufacturing 'boxes'. It is well-settled that one cannot absolutely make a thing by hand in the sense that nobody can create matter by hand, it is the transformation of a matter into something else and that something else is a question of degree, whether that something else is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character use and name and commercially known as such from that point of view is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Plain wood is certainly different from 'box' made of wood. Rindley, J. it may be pointed out, disagreed with the view and observed at page 362 of the report that where any process of art is used upon some substance, it is 'manufactured'. Plain wood is certainly different from 'box' made of wood. Rindley, J. it may be pointed out, disagreed with the view and observed at page 362 of the report that where any process of art is used upon some substance, it is 'manufactured'. He observed as follows: To say that a person does not "manufacture" a thing because it has the same name after the process has been passed upon it as it had before seems to me--but I suppose I am wrong--to be simply a question of words. If there had happened to be another word for saccharin of the strength of 550; different from saccharin of the strength of 330, it would almost--I will not Say quite--follow-from the reasoning of my learned brothers, that this would have been a manufacture, I cannot think that that is so. Take the, case of the manufacture of steel; and let it be steel before it goes into works apply some process to it and it becomes a particular sort of steel. But it is steel both before and after, although steel of different qualities. Is not that the manufacture of steel ? I should have thought so. Take the manufacture of wool, it is wool when it is on the sheep's back; it, is wool when it has passed through the process of sorting and picking which it has to go through in the mill. Is not that the manufacture of wool ? I should have thought it most certainly was, although the name "wool" is applied to it both before the process, begins and after it has ended. 43. In that view of the matter etymologically the word 'manufacture' properly construed would doubtless cover the transformation. In support of the question whether actually there is manufacture or not various documents were attempted to be utilised at the hearing of the application before us. Most, of these pieces of evidence cannot be admitted at this stage but indisputably in the Indian Standard Glossary of Terms which deals with various expressions; 'bleached fabric' has been defined as a fabric which has undergone bleaching treatment and is treated by the Indian Standards Institution as something different from fabric which has not undergone the bleaching operations. Different standards are set out by the same and the views of the Indian Standards Institution can be looked into by the court with certain amount of credibility. Different standards are set out by the same and the views of the Indian Standards Institution can be looked into by the court with certain amount of credibility. See in this connection Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1963] Supp 1 SCR 586; AIR 1963 SC 791 . So far as other evidence is concerned, as mentioned hereinbefore, it may not be safe to deal with the same as these were produced at a very late stage and all the materials are not on the record. 22. As the aforesaid decision was doubted in some other subsequent cases, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 401 (SC); [1989] 179 ITR 317 (SC); [1989] 3 SCC 488, after examining the relevant laws in this regard, reiterated the aforesaid principles and held as below (pages 423 and 424 in 74 STC): 42. The prevalent and generally accepted test to ascertain that there is "manufacture" is whether the change or the series of changes brought about by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognised as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the processes. The principles are clear But difficulties arise in their application in individual cases. There might be border-line cases where either conclusion with equal justification may be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between 'processing' and 'manufacture', we are afraid, results in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present-one. The correctness of the view in the Empire Industries' case [1987] 64 STC 42 (SC); [1986] 162 ITR 846 (SC); [1985] 3 SCC 314 cannot be tested in the light of material-- in the form of affidavit expressing the opinion of persons said to be engaged in, or connected with, the textile trade as to the commercial identity of the commodities before and after the processing---placed before the court in a subsequent case. These opinions are, of course, relevant and would be amongst the various factors to be taken into account in deciding the question. 43. These opinions are, of course, relevant and would be amongst the various factors to be taken into account in deciding the question. 43. On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to think that the view taken in the Empire Industries' case [1987] 64 STC 42 (SC); [1986] 162 ITR 846 (SC); [1985] 3 SCC 314 that 'grey fabric' after it undergoes the various processes of bleaching, dyeing, sizing, printing, finishing, etc, emerges as a commercially different commodity with its own price structure, custom and other commercial incidents and that there was in that sense a 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2(f), even as unamended, is an eminently plausible view and is not shown to suffer from any fallacy. Indeed, on this point the referring Bench did not disagree or have any reservations either. It is to be noticed that if the amending law is valid, this aspect becomes academic. 23. The aforesaid principles to hold any activity to be manufacture has been consistently followed in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works [1991] 4 SCC 473, where it was held as follows: 11. Clause (f) gives an inclusive definition of the term 'manufacture'. According to the dictionary, the term 'manufacture' means a process which results in an alteration or change in the goods which are subjected to the process of manufacturing leading to the production of a commercially new article. In determining what constitutes 'manufacture' no hard and fast rule can be applied and each case must be decided on its own facts having regard to the context in which the term is used in the provision under consideration. 12. Manufacture implies a change but every change is not manufacture, yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. Naturally, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodities are made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one class to another. There may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered the original commodity experiences a change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. There may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered the original commodity experiences a change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. But it is only when the change or a series of changes takes 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. 24. It was further explained by the honourable Supreme Court in Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1997] 10 SCC 717, that if by a process, a change is effected in a product, which was not there previously, and which change facilitates the utility of the product for which it is meant, then the process is not a simple process, but a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product 25. Dealing with carbonless or self-copy paper used in computer printing, the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II v. Sundstrand Forms P. Ltd.. [2011] 11 GSTR 1 (SC) : [2011] 9 SCC 470, held that (page 3 in 11 GSTR); 6. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the carbonless paper or self-copy paper emerges at the intermediate stage and has its own life but the same could be further used in the manufacture of stationery in continuous process. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the carbonless paper is a well-known marketable commodity as is evident from the process of manufacturing. The carbonless paper or other paper cannot be treated as the computer stationery unless it is subjected to the second stage of processing, i.e., the process of perforation, punching and fan-folding, etc. Therefore, in common trade parlance the computer stationery is processed through various modes of processing as indicated hereinbefore. 26. The carbonless paper or other paper cannot be treated as the computer stationery unless it is subjected to the second stage of processing, i.e., the process of perforation, punching and fan-folding, etc. Therefore, in common trade parlance the computer stationery is processed through various modes of processing as indicated hereinbefore. 26. From the above decisions of the honourable Supreme Court, the most important attribute of any activity to be considered as manufacture is that by virtue of the process or processes involved in the said activity, the original material commodity undergoes transformation to another commodity which acquires a distinct character, uses, and name with commercial identity. The moment there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes "manufacture" takes place. It is also evident that the transformation of the said commodity may involve one or several processes. What is important is that the new product must after the process must acquire a distinct character, use for the same and have a commercially known identity. 27. In the present case, it is the contention of the petitioner that computer stationery is a result of certain mechanical processes involving machines by way of cutting, punching and horizontal, vertical perforation, zig-zag folding, numbering, etc., and also implanting the papers with carbon roll to make it a multipart paper. Therefore, the fact that the aforesaid activity involves some processes, cannot be doubted and has also been admitted by the authorities. The case of the authorities, however, as can be seen from the letter dated January 27, 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, is that, even though the activity of making paper and fax stationary involves minor processing, it does not amount to manufacture in the true sense of the term. Therefore, the deciding factor in the case would be as to whether by the aforesaid admitted process, the original commodity had been transformed into a new and different article which is understood in the commercial parlance having a distinct character, uses and name. 28. It is seen that for production of computer stationery the raw materials used are paper rolls and carbon rolls. 28. It is seen that for production of computer stationery the raw materials used are paper rolls and carbon rolls. In order to qualify any product as computer stationery, the said product must be perforated on both sides/ edges of the paper and must also be foldable. Such perforation must be of certain specifications so that such paper can be fed into the computer printers and if it is a continuous paper, such paper must be horizontally perforated so that the continuous paper can be folded and torn off. Therefore, unless such paper is subjected to such perforation with certain specifications, the same cannot be used as computer stationery. 29. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II [2011] 11 GSTR 1 (SC) : [2011] 9 SCC 470 the honourable Supreme Court also held that the paper cannot be treated as a computer stationery unless it is subjected to the process of perforation, punching and fan-folding, etc., and in common trade parlance, a computer stationary is processed through various methods of processing. 30. In the said case, the honourable Supreme Court was considering the computer stationery of carbonless paper. 31. In the present case, from the records, it is seen that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacturing of computer stationery with carbon. The carbon papers are attached to the plain papers and thereafter perforated with necessary specifications and the end-products are papers with carbon for the use by the computer. The carbon element, which is another raw material for production of the computer stationery becomes an integral part of the product which When properly implanted to the normal paper becomes an identifiable distinct product to be used only for the purpose of computer printing and known in the commercial parlance as computer stationery. While ordinary paper may be also used for computer printing, computer stationery having distinct characters as stated above is used only for computer printing. 32. As can be seen from the above decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise;- Meerut II [2011] 11 GSTR 1 (SC) : [2011] 9 SCC 470, the computer stationery carries a distinct identify in the common trade parlance. 32. As can be seen from the above decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise;- Meerut II [2011] 11 GSTR 1 (SC) : [2011] 9 SCC 470, the computer stationery carries a distinct identify in the common trade parlance. Having considered the facts in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court as discussed above, this court is of the view that the activity undertaken by the petitioner, is of "manufacturing" of computer stationery and the aforesaid activity of the petitioner's firm is covered under the definition of "manufacture" provided under the Assam Value Added Tax Act and will not come within the negative list. 33. It was the stand of the authorities that the 'dealer's activity essentially is of cutting paper from the paper roll, perforating the cut paper and pasting carbon sheets on for use for computer and fax and since the "paper cutting from roll paper" was in the negative list of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Scheme, 1997, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession claimed. The authorities seem to be taking the view that the aforesaid processing does not amount to manufacture as it involves only cutting of papers to certain size, perforating and pasting of carbon sheets. The aforesaid stand of the authorities, however, cannot be accepted in view of fact that the end-product, i.e., the computer stationery as a result of the pasting of carbon on the paper which is perforated with certain specifications possesses a distinct character. The new form cannot be simply considered paper or carbon sheet. The new identity is an amalgamated and integrated new product consisting of paper and carbon pasted together and perforated with certain specifications which can be used only for the purpose of computer and such product acquires a distinct character and is known in the common trade parlance as computer stationery. 34. It may he also noted that the Commissioner of Taxes while passing the impugned order dated January 29, 2009, did not consider at all the fact that computer stationery has a distinct character with an identity under the common trade parlance as observed by, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II [2011] 11 GSTR 1 (SC); [2011] 9 SCC 470. 35. 35. Therefore, this court is of the view, that the activity of the petitioner, involving certain processes with the aid of-machines by integrating plain paper with carbon and which is perforated under certain specifications, and known in the common trade parlance as a computer stationery, would qualify as a manufacturing process. The process applied results into transformation of the two commodities of paper and carbon used as raw materials to an integrated and non-separable product assuming an identity of a different article or commodity known as computer stationery in the common trade parlance. 36. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the activity of the petitioner's firm in producing computer stationery as "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(30) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Accordingly, the impugned order dated January 27, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in annexure X to the writ petition Is set aside and the respondents are directed to take necessary consequential actions including recalling the certificate of public demand dated July 14, 2010 (annexure XII series), notices issued under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 19.13 dated June 15, 2010 (annexure XIII series) and the letter bearing No. 7681 dated February 8, 2010, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit C, Guwahati (annexure VII) and direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders as regards the petitioner's claim for eligibility and entitlement certificate under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005 in the light of the above findings, in accordance with law. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.