Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1025 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification and rate of tax on 'Dates' and 'Date Syrups' - Validity of clarification issued in Clarification No.40/2003 dated 27.01.2003 – Clarification is prospective or retrospective - Held that:- Section 28 A of TNGST Act empowers the Commissioner to issue Circulars and Clarifications concerning the rate of tax under the Act - The impugned clarification does not withdraw the clarification dated 13.8.2002, but states that earlier clarification is modified to the effect that 'Wet Dates' of foreign origin whether imported directly from other countries or purchased from other States are liable to be taxed at 2% in Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule of TNGST Act - The modification on the impugned clarification was made without notice to the petitioner - Based on which notices were issued proposing to demand tax at 20% - the AO received the petitioner's objection as well as the request for waiver and called upon the petitioner to explain as to why tax should not be levied at 20% on first sale of imported 'Wet Dates' as per Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule for the year 2002-03 - Similar notices were issued to all the three companies. In MOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PORUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [2004 (9) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the Court examined the scope of the Circular issued u/s 28-A of the TNGST Act and held that the circular is binding on the authorities and even if the authorities want to withdraw the same, it could be done prospectively - the first ground for rejecting the petitioner's objection is held to be contrary to the decision which examined the very power of the first respondent to issue clarifications/circulars in exercise of power under section 28-A of the TNGST Act. Whether the impugned clarification dated 27.1.2003, is in consonance with Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule of TNGST Act – Held that:- The petitioner's commodity being 'Wet Dates', falling within Part-D Entry 11 (2) of the First Schedule to the Act - Apart from that there were three other conditions to be fulfilled - It should have a foreign marking, it should not be sold in Indian brand name or trade mark and it should not be an item which had undergone any form of reprocessing, reassembling, re-constitution or repacking in India - Thus, going by the clarification issued by the first respondent, which is undoubtedly statutory, the commodities purchased by the petitioner by way of Inter-State sale could not be termed as imported goods. The clarification is beyond the scope of Entry 9 of the Eleventh Schedule - The clarification states that foreign goods whether imported directly from other countries or purchased from other States, the expression purchase from other States is conspicuously absent in Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule - Therefore, by virtue of clarification, the respondent cannot add any expression or phraseology, which is not contained in the Statute - Therefore, the impugned clarification has to be necessarily held to be bad in law – the Clarification cannot be given retrospective effect, which is precisely what the respondents have done in the case of the petitioners - Therefore, such retrospective application of the clarification was also illegal – thus, the impugned clarification is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the settled legal principles as stated above and accordingly, the same is quashed –Decided in favour of petitioner.
|