Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1274 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether amendment made by notification dated May 5, 1997 is applicable from the said date itself or it would operate retrospectively from the date of the issuance of the notification amended, i.e., Notification 781 dated May 31, 1995 - Manufacture and sale of electronic goods - Petitioner-revisionist was granted eligibility of certificate for exemption for a period of 10 years - Held that - It is settled position in law that the taxing statute is generally prospective in nature and if it has to be made retrospectively it has to be specifically provided. There is nothing on record to suggest that the amendment by substitution has been given retrospective step rather the notification dated May 5, 1997 in specific and unequivocally terms recites that the amendment which is being made in the notification dated March 31, 1995 shall come into effect from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. The said notification in the gazette was admittedly published on May 5, 1997. Therefore, when the notification itself provides for the date of applicability of the aforesaid notification no retrospectivity to it can be attributed so as to apply it from the effective date of Notification No. 781 dated March 31, 1995. Therefore, the Tribunal as such is not justified in holding that the amendment would be operative from April 1, 1995. Even if it is assumed that there was some mistake in the notification dated March 31, 1995, the said mistake cannot be taken note of. The mistake if any as suggested by the Tribunal was corrected by the notification dated May 5, 1997 and the said mistake would stand rectified from the date of publication of the subsequent notification and would not relate back to the notification dated March 31, 1995. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Interpretation of notification dated May 5, 1997 regarding amendment of notification dated March 31, 1995 for exemption/reduction in tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a revision under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against an order of the Tribunal related to the assessment year 1997-98 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, was granted an eligibility certificate for expansion under section 4A of the U. P. Act. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 781 dated March 31, 1995, which provided exemption/rebate on tax for the first 10 years of production/sale. Column 4 of the notification limited the exemption or reduction in tax to five percent of the sale price based on the rate of tax under the U. P. Act. The notification was subsequently amended on May 5, 1997, replacing "U. P. Act" with "Act" in column 4. The question before the court was whether this amendment applied from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette, i.e., May 5, 1997, or whether it operated retrospectively from the date of the original notification in 1995. The Tribunal had denied the benefit of exemption/reduction in tax to the assessee for the relevant year, considering the change from "U. P. Act" to "Act" as a rectification of a clerical mistake, effective from 1995. The court held that unless specifically provided, taxing statutes are generally prospective. The notification dated May 5, 1997 clearly stated that the amendment would be effective from the date of its publication, i.e., May 5, 1997. Therefore, the court ruled that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to 1995. The court emphasized that the language of the notification was plain and unambiguous, indicating the effective date of the change. It further stated that any mistake in the original notification was rectified by the subsequent amendment, which did not relate back to the earlier notification. In conclusion, the court sided with the assessee revisionist, holding that the amendment to the notification dated March 31, 1995, by the notification dated May 5, 1997, would be effective from May 5, 1997, and not retrospectively from April 1, 1995 as determined by the Tribunal. The revision was allowed in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|