Supreme Court of India
The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s. Premium Suiting Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Published on this website
Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2016
Citation: 2026 INSC 1158; reportable
Background
Background
In Premium Suiting, India’s Supreme Court held that job-work bleaching and dyeing of handloom or powerloom fabric did not attract textile cess under section 5A.
An independent processor bleached and dyed man-made fabric supplied by handloom and powerloom units on job work. The Tribunal upheld a ₹2,68,293 cess demand; the Allahabad High Court quashed it. The assessing officer appealed.
Legal questions
Legal questions
Does job-work bleaching and dyeing of exempt handloom or powerloom fabric attract textile cess under section 5A?
Court holding
What the Court decided
Job-work processing of already manufactured handloom or powerloom fabric, returned after bleaching and dyeing, was not manufacture under section 5A. The processor acted as an extended arm of the exempt manufacturers. The Central Excise Act’s expanded definition could not automatically be imported.
Final outcome
Final outcome
Assessing officer’s appeal dismissed. Allahabad High Court order quashing the ₹2,68,293 textile cess demand left intact.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
The High Court’s relief against the disputed cess demand stands. The decision concerns section 5A and the particular job-work arrangement, rather than liability under every tax law.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- Manufacture must be interpreted within the Textiles Committee Act’s own scheme and context.
- An expanded definition from another Act cannot automatically be imported; legislative incorporation, reference and pari materia analysis matter.
- On the facts, processing and returning existing handloom or powerloom fabric did not amount to manufacture under section 5A.
- The job worker operated as an extended arm of manufacturers whose textiles were covered by the express exemption.
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Supreme Court of India, Commercial Law, Civil Law by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
In Premium Suiting, India’s Supreme Court held that job-work bleaching and dyeing of handloom or powerloom fabric did not attract textile cess under section 5A.
Read the related article →