Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 864 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of High Court order – Tax Exemption Notifications - Explanatory and/or clarificatory Notifications - Whether Notifications of 2001 and 1999 should be treated as independent Notification or Notification explaining the Notification of 1999 and thus operative from the date of the original Notification – Held that:- The subsequent notification was only to further clarify that the exemption was available only in relation to the products which were manufactured by the industries and for which exemption was availed prior to 1999 - By virtue of the first notification, Entry 68 stood deleted from the second schedule - The second notification issued on the same day restored the exemption already availed under Entry 68 - The said notification under Clause XI also empowered the Government to issue directives from time to time to clarify the scope of the second notification of 1999 - Third notification brought out the terms more explicitly to fall within the terms 'clarificatory' or 'explanatory' notification - An explanation should only explain or clarify - If it excepts, excludes or restricts, it is not an explanation, but a proviso, and should be considered as operative only from the date of its coming into effect - Therefore, had the notification issued by the Government, instead of removing the ambiguity in the earlier notification, introduced fresh conditions bringing substantial changes in the Notification then the notification would not have been explanatory or clarificatory. It is manifest that the intention of the Government was not only to extend the benefit of exemption under Entry 68, Clause XI of the second notification to those dealers who had obtained the certificate of registration and had been enoying exemption on a class of goods prior to 31.12.1999 but also those who have not effected any change in the product manufactured by them after 30.04.2000 - The appellant(s) did not manufacture prior to the issuance of the first notification and further obtained the registration for a different class of goods which included computer stationeries and other related products after 30.04.2000 and therefore such industry would not be entitled to claim the benefit under the Entry 68 by taking shelter of Clause IX of the second notification of December - The second notification, therefore, being clarificatory would apply retrospectively to the appellant(s) - Judgment and order passed by the High Court affirmed and the appeal is dismissed - No order as to cost – Decided against assessee.
|