Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 113 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTSEZ - Non obstante clause - levy of purchase tax - whether the non-obstante clause contained in section 22 of the SEZ Act had a limited application - Held that:- nonobstante clause has to be seen in light of the legislative intent - Such intention, however, has to be gathered from the statute containing such nonobstante clause. We have perused sections 21 and 22 of the SEZ Act and also other provisions contained in the SEZ Act. There is nothing to indicate that section 22 of the SEZ Act desired to have limited application when it came to the fiscal benefits contained in section 21 of the SEZ Act. As we have noted, section 21 of the SEZ Act granted several benefits of tax waivers to the transactions entered into in the specified areas within the SEZ. These were necessarily State taxes. But for section 21 of the SEZ Act such taxes would be levied even on the transactions entered into within the said specified areas. In absence of section 22 of the SEZ Act, there would be a conflict between various taxing statutes and section 21 of the SEZ Act. In order to avoid such conflict, section 22 of the SEZ Act was enacted giving overriding effect. Without making any matching provision in the VAT Act, the overriding effect given to the provisions made in the SEZ Act by virtue of section 22 of the Act cannot be whittled down. If the VAT Act and in particular, sections 5A and 9(5) also had a similar non-obstante clause, it would become a matter of legal scrutiny as to which one of the two non-obstante clauses would prevail. In the present case, we are not confronted with such a situation. It was in this background that the Supreme Court in the case of Ketan Parekh (supra) had an occasion to consider as to which one of the two clauses, namely, Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, would prevail since both contained non-obstante clauses. State legislature desired to give overriding effect to all the provisions of SEZ Act over other State laws and in terms of section 21, particularly, in respect of fiscal statutes, prescribing levy of various duties. There was no intention to limit the operation of this non-obstante clause. No such intention is borne out from the SEZ Act. We are afraid any other contrary intention emerging from any other State fiscal statute would not limit the scope of the non-obstante clause when no overriding effect is given to such provision though enacted much after SEZ Act was introduced. Demand raised by the respondents from the present petitioners for payment of purchase tax under section 9(5) of the VAT Act is invalid and impermissible. The same is, therefore, quashed. The tax recovered, if any, from the petitioners shall be refunded with statutory interest - Decided in favour of assessee.
|