JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Aforesaid batch of writ applications involve common question of law and were tagged to be heard together and same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The short issue involved in these writ petitions is “Whether Petitioner-company is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit on Intrastate stock transfer of goods and denial of the same to it is contrary to amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘JVAT Act’)”? 3. For the sake of ready reference, facts of individual cases are enumerated hereunder in short: (i) W.P. (T) No. 786 of 2013 pertains to the period 2010-11 in respect of Unit-II of the Petitioner-company. The Petitioner is primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling of Auto Parts and Leaf Spring assembly. Petitioner has two Units/Plants being Unit No. I and Unit No. II bearing TIN No. 20310900926 and TIN No. 2044 0905643 respectively and both the Units are situated at Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur. It is the case of the Petitioner that during normal course of its business, Petitioner makes Intrastate stock transfer of goods from its Unit-II to Unit-I and vice versa. An inspection was conducted in the premises of the Petitioner by a team of officials of Commercial Taxes Department and for the Period 2010-11 it was alleged that the Petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit (for short ‘ITC’) for Rs. 52,28,783.68 on Intrastate stock transfer of its goods and it was contended in the Inspection Report that ITC on the goods manufactured and thereafter stock transferred within the State is not eligible in view of the provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of JVAT Act, 2005. Under the said circumstances, notices were issued against the Petitioner initiating ‘Before Assessment Proceedings’ under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act and impugned ‘Before Assessment Order’ dated 05.12.2012 was passed by Assessing Officer under Section 40(2), wherein claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer was disallowed and total liability along with interest thereupon was fastened upon the Petitioner of Rs. 42,15,419/-. The Assessment Order dated 05.12.2012 (at Annexure-4) is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 42,15,419/-. The Assessment Order dated 05.12.2012 (at Annexure-4) is under challenge in the instant writ petition. (ii) W.P. (T) No. 790 of 2013 also pertains to Unit-II of the Petitioner for the period 2011-12 and pursuant to the inspection carried out by a team of officials of Commercial Taxes Department, proceeding under Section 40(2) of JVAT Act was initiated against the Petitioner and Order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-4) was passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods, amounting to Rs. 63,57,867/-, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. (iii) W.P. (T) No. 788 of 2013 also pertains to Unit-II of the Petitioner, wherein pursuant to the inspection carried out, similar proceeding under Section 40(2) was initiated and claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods was disallowed vide order dated 05.12.2012 passed under Section 40(2) of JVAT Act and total ITC along with interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 5,13,425/- was disallowed, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. (iv) W.P. (T) No. 4508 of 2021 pertains to Unit-I of the Petitioner-company bearing TIN 20310900926 for the period 2011-12. Petitioner filed its return for the period 2011-12 for its Unit-I, wherein it claimed total ITC of Rs. 42,86,923.76. However, the Assessing Officer, at the time of passing of Assessment Order dated 21.11.2014, out of the total claim of ITC amounting to Rs. 42,86,923.76, allowed only a claim of Rs. 36,81,172.93 and the balance claim of Rs. 6,98,24, 413.99 was denied on the ground that Petitioner made Intrastate stock transfer of goods from its Unit-I to Unit-II. The Assessing Officer relied upon a decision of this Court in the case in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. dated 24.04.2008 passed in W.P. (T) No. 6285 of 2007. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, preferred an appeal before Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, which was registered as AP-VAT-A-93/2004-05. However, the Appellate Court, vide order dated 30.01.2016, by relying upon un-amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act, upheld the Assessment Order. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred statutory revision before Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi against the Appellate Order, which was registered as Revision Case No. JR-74 of 2016. However, the Appellate Court, vide order dated 30.01.2016, by relying upon un-amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act, upheld the Assessment Order. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred statutory revision before Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi against the Appellate Order, which was registered as Revision Case No. JR-74 of 2016. However, the revisional court, vide its order dated 10.08.2021, was pleased to dismiss the revision petition of the Petitioner and held that Petitioner is not entitled to claim ITC on the goods which were stock transferred by it within the State. (v) W.P. (T) No. 4509 of 2021 also pertains to Unit-I of the Petitioner-company for the period 2010-11, wherein Petitioner claimed total ITC of Rs. 57,07,648.79. The Assessing Officer, while relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. (supra) held that since Petitioner made Intrastate stock transfer of approximately 14.88 per cent of its total turnover; to the extent of its turnover which pertains to Intrastate stock transfer, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim ITC. Accordingly, vide Assessment Order dated 28.03.2014, as against the claim of ITC of Rs. 57,07,648.99, only an amount of Rs. 48,58,350.65 was allowed and the claim of ITC of Rs. 8,49,928.14/- was denied by the Assessing Officer. The Petitioner, against the said Assessment Order, preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and its Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2015, wherein Appellate Authority relied upon un-amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred statutory revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand which was registered as Revision Case No. JR 206/2015, but the Revisional Court, vide order dated 10.08.2021, was pleased to dismiss the revision petition declaring that Petitioner is not eligible for ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods. 4. Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate along with Mr. Rajneet Kushwaha, Advocate assailed the impugned orders of denial of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer by primarily contending, inter-alia, that Revenue authorities including Commercial Taxes Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act, 2005 was amended with retrospective effect and the earlier embargo existing on claiming ITC on Intrastate stock transfer was removed by the amending Act contained in S.O. 1 dated 7th May, 2011. However, despite thereof, claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer has been denied. 5. However, despite thereof, claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer has been denied. 5. It has been further submitted that while denying the claim of ITC, reliance was placed upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. being the order dated 24.04.2008 passed in W.P. (T) No. 6285 of 2007, which was wholly misplaced. It was submitted that the Judgment which was passed in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. dated 24.04.2008 was delivered in the backdrop of un-amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) and, thus, could not have been applied in the case of the Petitioner, especially because, provision of section 18(8)(ix) has been amended with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 01.04.2006. It has been submitted that pursuant to the Judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. several Industries situated in the State of Jharkhand, like the Petitioner’s Units, for example, Tata Steel Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd., Tata Cummins, Tinplate India Ltd., etc. which were engaged in manufacture of goods, filed representations before the State Government pleading hardships due to denial of the benefit of ITC in respect of the goods consumed for manufacture of goods for Intrastate stock transfer of goods for sale. It is the case of the Petitioner that there are several manufacturing Units situated within the State of Jharkhand and it is not possible for the said Units to sell its product in the market from its Industrial Unit itself and they are required to establish Branches, Stock-yards and Dealers across the State from where the goods are sold. In order to sell the goods, through their Branches/Stockyards, the companies, like Petitioner, have to transfer the goods by way of Intrastate stock transfer which are intended for sale. However, in view of un-amended provision of Section 18(8)(ix), proportionate ITC on the goods used for manufacture of goods, which were Intrastate stock transferred for sale, was being denied. It was pursuant to the said representations being made by various Units situated within the State of Jharkhand, the state of Jharkhand carried out amendment in Section 18(8)(ix), wherein the embargo on availability of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods was lifted and the Judgment rendered in the Case of Tata steel Ltd. (supra) was made inapplicable through legislative enactment. However, despite the aforesaid facts, in the present cases, Assessing Officer has not only denied the benefit of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer by relying upon un-amended provision of Section 18(8)(ix) and the Judgment of Tata steel Ltd. (supra), but even the Commercial Taxes Tribunal has went a step ahead by declaring that no ITC whatsoever is available to an Industrial Unit under Section 18(4)(iii) of the JVAT Act, 2005 if goods are manufactured and are not sold but are stock transferred. 6. It has been further brought to our notice that the Judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. has been quashed/set aside by Hon’ble Apex Court recently in Civil Appeal No. 7398 of 2008 vide Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2022 and, thus, once the very basis of the Assessment Order i.e. the Judgment of Tata Steel Ltd. (supra) has been set aside by Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court and the liability fastened upon the Petitioner on account of denial of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar AAG-II argued that ITC is in the form of concession, and, in order to avail the benefit of ITC, the condition stipulated under the JVAT Act is required to be followed by the assessees including the Petitioner. 8. By placing reliance upon Section 18(2) of the JVAT Act, it has been submitted that availability of ITC under the JVAT Act is subject to conditions as specified in Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 18. By placing reliance upon Section 18(3) of the Act, it has been submitted that ITC is subject to conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed, and Section 18(8)(ix), which is germane for the present dispute, starts with a negative covenant i.e. “No Input Tax Credit under Sub-Section (1) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer.........” It has been submitted that Section 18(8)(ix) is an exclusion clause and in terms of the exclusion clause, benefit of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer was not available. By placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JCIT vs. Saheli Leasing and Industries Ltd. (20010) 6 SCC 384, it has been submitted that the doctrine of “aspect legislation” must be kept in mind while interpreting the provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. 9. Further reliance has been made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ald Automotives Ltd. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, (2019) 13 SCC 255 and in the case of TVS Motor Company Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 13 SCC 403 , to contend that benefit of ITC is in the nature of ‘benefit/concession’ and is not a vested right and/or indefeasible right. It was vehemently argued that benefit of ITC conferred under the Act is subject to certain contingencies and condition prescribed in the statutory Scheme and unless an assessee fulfills said contingencies and/or satisfies the conditions, benefit of ITC cannot be extended to the said assesse. 10. On the strength of the above, it was contended that benefit of ITC has been rightly denied to the respective Petitioners. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record; it is evident that the Petitioner is a manufacturing dealer which is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Auto Parts and Leaf Spring assembly. 12. In order to properly appreciate the issues involved in the instant writ application, it would be appropriate to quote certain provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 which are quoted hereunder: “(I) Section-2 (xxii) “Goods” means all kinds of movable property (other than newspapers, actionable claims, electricity, stocks and shares and securities) and includes livestock, all materials, computer software sold in any form, Sim cards used in Mobile Telephony or for any other similar activation purposes, commodities and articles and every kind of property (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, and all growing crops, grass, trees and things attached to, or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. (II) Section-2 (xxviii) “Input” means, goods purchased in course of business - (a) for resale in the same form; or (b) for use in manufacturing or processing of taxable goods for sale; or (c) for directly use in mining or use as containers or packing materials for taxable goods; or (d) for the execution of works contract, but excluding purchases of Petrol, Diesel, Furnace Oil and steam and Natural Gas and for use as Capital Goods as specified in Appendix-I of this Act. (III) Section-2 (xxix) “Input Tax” means the tax paid or payable under this Act, by a registered dealer to another registered dealer on the purchase of goods, in the course of business for resale or for use in manufacturing or processing of taxable goods for sale, or for directly use in mining or use as containers or packing materials for taxable goods or for the execution of works contract. Provided that input tax shall also include tax paid on the entry of goods into the local area as specified in Schedule-III. Provided further that input tax shall also include tax paid on the capital goods for Registered Start-up-business and shall qualify for Input Tax Credit as prescribed. Provided further, that tax charged at Maximum Retail Price; shall not be treated as Input Tax, for the purpose of resellers, when reselling medicines or drugs, specified in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1995. (IV) Section-16 Input Tax - Input tax in relation to a registered dealer means the tax charged under this Act by the selling dealer to such dealer on the sale to him of any goods for resale or for use in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale or for directly use in mining or use as containers or packing materials or for the execution of works contract. It shall also include the tax paid on entry of goods as mentioned in schedule III by a registered dealer. It shall also include the tax paid on entry of goods as mentioned in schedule III by a registered dealer. (V) Section-17 Tax Payable - (1) The tax payable by a registered dealer for any tax period shall be the difference between the output tax payable plus purchase tax, if any, and the input tax paid, which can be determined, from the following formula: Tax payable = (O+P)-I Where ‘O’ denotes the output tax payable for any tax period as determined under Section 15 ‘P’ denotes the purchase tax paid by a registered dealer for any tax period as determined under Section 10 and ‘I’ denotes the input tax paid or payable and includes tax paid on Entry of Goods, for the said tax period as determined under Section 15. (VI) Section-18-Input Tax Credit: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, for the purpose of calculating the tax payable by a registered dealer for any tax period after being registered, an input tax credit as determined under this Section shall be allowed to such registered dealer for the tax paid or payable in respect of all taxable sales other than any other sales as may be prescribed, or purchases under Section 10 during that period. (2) The input tax credit to which the registered dealer is entitled shall be the amount of tax paid by the registered dealer to another registered dealer, on his turnover of purchases made during any tax period, intended to be used for the purposes and subject to the conditions as specified in Sub-Section (3), Sub-Section (4), Sub-Section (5) and Sub-Section (6) and calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, partial or proportionate input tax credit may be allowed in such cases as may be used (xxx) for their respective uses. (4) Input Tax credit shall be allowed on purchase of goods made within the State of Jharkhand from a registered dealer holding a valid certificate of registration and which are intended for the purpose of: (i)................... (ii)................... (4) Input Tax credit shall be allowed on purchase of goods made within the State of Jharkhand from a registered dealer holding a valid certificate of registration and which are intended for the purpose of: (i)................... (ii)................... (iii) use as raw material and for direct use in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale, or for directly use in mining, or for use as capital goods, other than those goods exempt from tax under this Act and the goods specified in Part E of schedule II, intended for sale in the State of Jharkhand or in the course of interstate trade and commerce. (VII) Section-18(6) - Input Tax credit shall not be claimed by the dealer until the tax period in which the dealer receives the tax invoice in original containing the prescribed particulars of the sale evidencing the amount of input tax paid. Provided that input tax credit shall be claimed by a registered dealer on the tax paid, on the entry of goods mentioned in schedule III evidencing the amount of tax paid, as prescribed. Provided further that for good and sufficient reasons, to be recorded in writing, where a registered dealer is prevented from producing the Tax Invoice in original or evidence of payment of tax paid on entry of goods, in original, the prescribed authority may allow, such input tax credit as prescribed. (VIII) Rule-35(2) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006: 35. Evidence in support of claims in respect of goods leviable to Output Tax at the First Point of Sale within the State of Jharkhand (2) Any VAT dealer, who claims Input Tax Credit under Sub-Section (4) of Section 18 of the Act and his Output Tax payable requires the Input Tax Credit, for the sales made at the stage(s) under Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, shall substantiate for such claim before the authority prescribed, by producing a true Declaration in writing, issued by the preceding VAT selling dealer, in Form JVAT 404 evidencing that the goods in question have already been subjected to Tax at the preceding stage of their sale in the State of Jharkhand.” 13. By bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the JVAT Act, 2005 it would transpire that said provisions are in consonance with the scheme of Value Added Tax Regime introduced in the Country. By bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the JVAT Act, 2005 it would transpire that said provisions are in consonance with the scheme of Value Added Tax Regime introduced in the Country. From the scheme of JVAT, 2005 it would be evident that output tax liability of a dealer was required to be determined after subtracting therein the input tax paid by the dealer. 14. For the purposes of manufacturing dealer, Section 18(4)(3) of JVAT Act is relevant and a bare reading of the provisions of Section 18(4)(3) would reveal that following conditions are required to be complied with by a dealer in order to avail ITC on raw materials used by it in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale, namely: (i) Purchase of goods should be made within the State of Jharkhand. (ii) Purchase should be made from registered dealer holding validity certificate of registration. (iii) Goods purchased should be intended for the purpose of use as raw materials for direct use in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale. 15. Admittedly, in the case of the Petitioner, there is no dispute that Petitioner purchased goods from a registered dealer within the State of Jharkhand and, thus, the first two conditions are satisfied. 16. It is further not in dispute that Petitioner purchased the goods and utilized it for use as raw materials for direct use in manufacturing or processing of goods for sale. Thus, the Petitioner is fulfilling all the three conditions. However, dispute in the present case has arisen that the Petitioner has not sold the goods itself but has made Intrastate stock transfer of the said goods to its another Unit from which the goods have been ultimately sold. 17. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to un-amended and amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the Act, which had put an embargo on availing the benefit of ITC, if the goods upon being used as raw material for manufacturing and/or processing of goods were not directly sold by the Unit but were stock transferred either as Intrastate stock transfer for sale or Interstate stock transfer for sale. Said provisions are quoted herein-under: Un-amended Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. “18(8) No input tax credit under Sub-Section (i) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer: (i)................. Said provisions are quoted herein-under: Un-amended Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. “18(8) No input tax credit under Sub-Section (i) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer: (i)................. (ix) In respect of goods used as raw materials in manufacturing of goods for transfer of stock or other than by way of sale or for sale outside the State of Jharkhand. Provided that in respect of transactions falling under this clause, input tax credit may be allowed on the tax paid in excess of 4% on such materials used in the manufacture of the finished Goods.” Amended Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. “18(8) No input tax credit under Sub-Section (i) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer: (i)................. (ix) In respect of goods consumed for manufacture of goods for Interstate transfer of stock or for sale outside the State. Provided that in respect of transactions falling under this clause, input tax credit may be allowed on the tax paid in excess of 4% on such materials used in the manufacture of the finished Products.” 18. A bare perusal of the un-amended provision would reveal that if the goods manufactured for stock transfer, whether Intrastate or Interstate, ITC could not be availed subject to exceptions carved out in the proviso. The proviso enables availment of ITC in respect of tax paid in excess of 4% on such materials used in the manufacture of goods which were stock transferred, either within or outside the State. Thus, even prior to amendment carried out under Section 18(8)(ix), proportionate ITC in excess of 4% of the tax paid on input goods was available. Therefore, when the input tax paid was over and above 4% paid on raw materials consumed for manufacturing of goods which were ultimately stock transferred whether Intrastate or Interstate under the un-amended provision, ITC was only denied to the extent of 4%. The reason was obvious that the State intended to retain the tax of 4% which would have been otherwise charged by the State if the goods would have been sold within the State and, therefore, proportionate ITC was allowed over and above 4% as per the method of calculation provided under the Rule. This un-amended provision was causing hardship to local Industries where the local Industries were making Intrastate stock transfer of the goods within the State for sale. This un-amended provision was causing hardship to local Industries where the local Industries were making Intrastate stock transfer of the goods within the State for sale. The hardship was evident from the fact that although local Industries were making Intrastate stock transfer within the State for sale, ultimately, the goods were sold and the State was realizing revenue on such sale, ITC was provided only in excess of 4% paid on raw materials. Due to this hardship, provision of Section 18(8)(ix) was amended and instead of the word ‘transfer of stock’ which included both Intrastate and Interstate stock transfer, the words ‘for Interstate transfer’ was inserted in Section 18(8)(ix) of the Act. 19. The effect of the aforesaid amendment is that the erstwhile bar on the availment of full ITC on transfer of stock was relaxed with retrospective effect to the extent of Intrastate stock transfer and, pursuant to the amendment, a dealer could have availed full ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of stock. However, in respect of Interstate transfer of stock, ITC could have been availed only to the extent of tax paid on input above 4% or 5%, as the case may be. 20. This aspect of the matter has not at all been appreciated by the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal, in its Judgment, though held that the term ‘for sale’ occurring in Section 18(4)(iii) of the JVAT Act means that the goods should be ‘intended for sale’ but, despite having recorded the said fact, learned Tribunal in its impugned Judgment has held that benefit would be available only at the stage when final product is sold and not anterior to that i.e. at the stage of stock transfer. We are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal is completely contrary to the scheme of the JVAT Act. ITC is claimed by a manufacturer on its input which is, admittedly, used for manufacture of goods, which is intended for sale. If the reasoning given by the Tribunal is accepted, then a manufacturer would get ITC on input if the goods are manufactured by it and sold by it itself. Whereas, the manufacturer would not be entitled to ITC if the goods are manufactured but not sold by manufacturer itself and stock transferred to its branch/stockyard/other units etc. up to the stage when the final product is sold. Whereas, the manufacturer would not be entitled to ITC if the goods are manufactured but not sold by manufacturer itself and stock transferred to its branch/stockyard/other units etc. up to the stage when the final product is sold. This is clearly not the intent of the Scheme of JVAT Act and the manufacturer is not required to wait for availment of ITC to a stage of ultimate sale of goods but it is entitled for ITC if the goods are merely ‘intended for sale’. Almost identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court by interpreting almost pari materia provisions contained under Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in the case of Assessing Authority cum Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurugram and Another vs. East Indian Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd. Faridabad, (1981) 3 SCC 531 . In the said Judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court in categorical term has held that the words ‘for sale’ following the word ‘goods’ in Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 clearly indicate that the goods manufactured or processed must be goods ‘for sale’; in other words, they must be ‘intended for sale’ either by registered dealer himself or by anyone else. For brevity, relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment is extracted herein-under: “7. Now ordinarily when the language of a statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the object and purpose of the enactment because in such a case, the language best declares the intention of the law-giver. But, even if we look at the object and intendment of Section 8 (1)(b) read with Section 8(3)(b), we reach the same conclusion. The object of providing a lower rate of tax under Section 8(1)(b) for sales of goods described in Section 8(3)(b) clearly is that when goods are purchased by a registered dealer for being used by him in the manufacture or processing of goods which are intended for sale, the goods which are ultimately sold should not become unduly expensive to the consumer by addition of a high rate of sales tax on the purchase of goods which are used in the manufacture or processing of the goods ultimately sold. Now if this be the object of Section 8(1)(b) read with Section 8(3)(b) it should be immaterial whether the sale of the manufactured or processed goods is by the registered dealer manufacturing or processing goods or by another person for whom the goods are manufactured or processed by the registered dealer. The intendment of the statutory provision being that the cost of the manufactured or processed goods to the consumer should not be unduly enhanced by reason of higher rate of tax on the goods used in the manufacture or processing of the goods sold, it is obvious that if this intendment is to be fully effectuated, the benefit of the statutory provision should be available irrespective of whether the manufactured or processed goods are sold to the consumer by the registered dealer or by some one else who has got the same manufactured by the registered dealer. It was for this reason that the legislature deliberately omitted to add the words “by him” after the words “for sale” so as to make it clear that this sub-clause of Section 8(3)(b) would apply even if the goods manufactured or processed by the registered dealer were intended for sale by some one else. The words “for sale” following upon the word ‘goods’ clearly indicate that the goods manufactured or processed by the registered dealer must be goods for sale or in other words, they must be goods intended for sale and it is immaterial whether they are intended for sale by the registered dealer himself or by anyone else. This sub-clause of Section 8(3)(b) would therefore clearly cover a case where a registered dealer manufactures or processes goods for a third party on a job contract and uses in the manufacture or processing of such goods, materials purchased by him against his Certificate of Registration and the declarations in Form C, so long as the manufactured or processed goods are intended for sale by such third party. It is of course, true that if proceedings are taken against the registered dealer under Section 10, clause (d) or Section 10-A, the question would arise whether the goods manufactured or processed by the registered dealer for a third party were intended for sale by such third party and that would have to be decided by the Court or the competent authority according to the appropriate and relevant rules of evidence, but merely because some difficulty may arise in the determination of this question by reason of the third party coming into the picture that would be no ground for refusing to place on the language of Section 8(3)(b) the only construction which it can reasonably bear.” 21. We have carefully perused the Judgments relied upon by the counsel for the State and we are of the opinion that said Judgments are of no help for the Revenue. It is an undisputed fact that availment of ITC is in the nature of concession and said concession is available only on fulfilling the stipulations and/or conditions prescribed under the Act. In the instant case, Petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions for availment of ITC, but despite the same it is being denied to the Petitioner on a wrongful interpretation of the provisions of Sections 18(4)(iii) and 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act. Thus, in our opinion, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State upon the Judgment on the issue of ITC being a concession in the present case is misplaced as there is no dispute on the said proposition. 22. We have examined the Assessment Orders and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and/or Tribunal, from which it is gathered that claim of ITC of the Petitioner-company was primarily rejected by placing reliance upon the Judgment rendered by this Court dated 24.04.2008 in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. (supra). The relevant extract of the said Judgment is quoted herein-under: “7. From perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifestly clear that as per Sub-Section (4) of Section 18, input tax credit is to be allowed on the purchase of goods made within the State of Jharkhand from a registered dealer holding a valid certificate of registration and which are intended for direct use in the mining goods for sale in the State of Jharkhand or in course of inter-state trade and commerce. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that it is a dealer at Nuamundi, Chaibasa engaged in mining activities and it uses explosives and other raw materials which are directly used in mining and the mining products are transferred by Nuamundi unit to its manufacturing units at Jamshedpur not by way of sale but as a stock transfer. In our view, therefore, the Petitioner as a dealer at Nuamundi, Chaibasa Circle, is not entitled for input tax credit on such raw materials which are directly used in mining.” 23. Aforesaid Judgment passed by this Court was challenged by Tata Steel Ltd. before Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7398 of 2008. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its Judgment and order dated 24th Feb. 2022, set aside the Judgment of this Court by holding as under: “In view of the aforesaid, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order interpreting Clause (ix) to Sub-Section (8) of Section 18 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as it existed before the Jharkhand Value Added Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011, with an order of remand to the High Court for a fresh decision. The respondent will be entitled to file an amended/additional counter affidavit relying on the amended clause. Equally, it will be open to the appellant to file proceedings challenging the ordinance and the notification. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on interpretation of Clause (ix) to subsection (8) of Section 18 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, pre and post the amendment or validity of the notification granting retrospective effect to the amendment.” 24. In view of the aforesaid facts, the very foundation, on the basis of which, claim of ITC of the Petitioner was denied i.e. the Judgment of Tata Steel Ltd. (supra) as well as un-amended provision of Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act does not exist and, resultantly, it can be safely declare that claim of ITC of the Petitioner on Intrastate stock transfer has been wrongly denied in the impugned orders. 25. 25. Accordingly, we hold that Petitioner is entitled to claim full ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods and, consequentially, the impugned orders being the orders dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-4 in three writ petitions being W.P. (T) No. 786 of 2013, W.P. (T) No. 788 of 2013 and W.P. (T) No. 790 of 2013), impugned Judgment and order dated 10th August, 2021 passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand (Annexure-8 in W.P. (T) No. 4508 of 2021) and impugned Judgment and Order dated 10th August, 2021 passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand (Annexure-9 in W.P. (T) No. 4509 of 2021); are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, if any amount has been realized from the Petitioner consequent upon passing of the impugned orders towards denial of its claim of ITC, the said amount shall be refunded to the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which, said amount shall be refunded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery of the said amount till the date of actual refund. 26. Consequently, all these writ applications are allowed. Pending I.A. if any, are also disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.