Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2006 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 554 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTPayment of tax under the composition scheme - provisions of section 7-D - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of section 7-D of the Act shows that an option has been given to a dealer who is covered by a scheme issued by the State Government from time to time to opt for payment of lump sum amount in lieu of the amount of tax. It excludes the applicability of other provisions of the Act which deal with the assessment and payment of tax. A non obstante clause, as observed by the apex court in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar M. S. E. S. K. K. Mahasangh[2004 (10) TMI 579 - SUPREME COURT], is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of a conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provisions or Act mentioned in the non obstante clause, the provision following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non obstante clause occurs. Once a dealer has opted to pay the tax in lump sum under section 7-D of the Act after it has been accepted by the department, any demand for that period is not relatable to the actual turnover but the sum agreed upon. In other words, the department as well as the dealer both know the amount payable and receivable by each other. The determination of lump sum amount in lieu of tax displaces the requirement of regular assessment proceedings and the quantification of tax liability is by agreement as per the term of the scheme which would bind both the parties. The object of introducing such a scheme under a taxing statute is well established as so many advantages are attached to such scheme besides being hassle-free to the dealer. It also avoids unnecessary litigation. The department in its turn receives a fixed amount of tax without undertaking the assessment work and, thus, saves a lot of time. It also facilitates the speedy recovery of tax. There cannot be any dispute that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute. However, where the demand is being made under the terms of the contract which specifically provides that there would be no reduction or change in the composition money even if the firing has not been done in brick kiln or it has been started late or for any other reason, the petitioner is bound by the said clause and he cannot be permitted to challenge the same in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the cases of Har Shankar[1975 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT], Narain Prasad[1996 (9) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT] and Bharathi Knitting Co.[1996 (5) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the division Bench in the case of Jaya Bhatta Udyog [1990 (7) TMI 368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 858 of 1990, decided on July 17, 1990), subsequently followed by other division Benches in the cases of Sri Durga Brick Field[1991 (1) TMI 440 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Jai Sharma Int. Udyog [1990 (7) TMI 368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], lay down the correct law. Let the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench for further orders.
|