Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2005 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASValidity Of Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes - circular expanded the scope or Section 194C - Challenged the correctness of the clarification - Commercial taxes - chain of fast food restaurants under the name and style "Pizza Hut" - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, though the circular issued by the Commissioner u/s 28-A is not binding on the assessing authority or appellate authority, yet we cannot overlook the fact that since Commissioner is a superior authority to the assessing officer or appellate authority, it would be impracticable to expect the subordinate authority to take a view contrary to the view expressed by the Commissioner. Hence, in our opinion, the plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted in such a case, and if the petitioner contends that the clarification has been issued contrary to the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder, it will always be open to question the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was served with a pre-revision notice on the basis of a circular issued on 18-3-2002, which stipulated that branded pizza could be taxed at 16%. Accordingly the assessments which had been initially completed and which levied a tax of 2% u/s 3D of the Act were sought to be revised and tax at 16% was proposed to be levied. A plain reading of Section 3D, as it existed prior to 1-4-2002, indicates that it levies a tax on all foods and drinks sold in hotels and restaurants having a total turnover of not less than Rs. 25 lakhs at a flat rate of 2%. The section made no distinction as to whether the food and drink that was sold was branded or unbranded. Section 3D introduced the concept of sale of unbranded good and drink only in the amended provisions, which came into effect on 1-4-2002. Hence, in our opinion, it was clearly not permissible for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue a clarification that branded pizza would be taxed at 16%. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Kerala Financial Corporation Ltd. case [1994 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] this would really tantamount to amending the TNGST Act itself by a clarification issued under Section 28-A. A direction to levy tax at 16% when the charging section prescribes a flat rate of 2% is, in our opinion, not permissible. The impugned clarification is clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 3D as it stood prior to 1-4-2002. Therefore, the impugned clarification no. 156/2003, dated 26-6-2003 is liable to be quashed. It has been pointed out therein that once a clarification or circular is issued by a superior authority, it would be an exercise in futility to ask the assessee to raise an objection to the circular before an inferior authority, vide the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Filterco v. CST [1986 (2) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT]. Subsequently, it was also held by the Supreme Court that clarifications or circulars could be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the remedies of appeal or revision would be futile or not efficacious. In view of these decisions of the Supreme Court, the views taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal and by the Division Bench of this Court do not lay down the correct law. It has already been observed by us that once circular/clarifications are issued by a superior authority, an appellate remedy to a lower authority would be futile, and not efficacious. Hence, we cannot agree with the learned single Judge in this respect. It may be mentioned that the dispute in the present case is only in respect of the tax liability prior to 1-4-2002. As regards the tax liability subsequent to 1-4-2002, the matter is pending before the statutory appellate authorities, and hence, we are not expressing any opinion about the same, except to say that the impugned circular should not be treated as binding on the said authorities as they are exercising judicial function. Thus, we quash the circular no. 156/2003, dated 26-6-2003 insofar as it relates to the tax liability for the period prior to 1-4-2002 to pay sales tax at 16%, and the assessment order, dated 10-12-2003. The order of the Tribunal dated 24-11-2003 is set aside. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.Ps are closed.
|