Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (7) TMI 191 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxScope of clarification issued by the Revenue Department - To be retrospective or prospective - Applicability of Exemption Entry No. 8 on maize starch - overriding effect of Taxation Entry No. 61 - recovery of taxes retrospectively is a mere change of opinion or not - HELD THAT - The Exemption Notification was erroneously held by the High Court not to have statutory backing. Recital thereof shows the source of power. Exercise of power was in terms of Section 17 of the Act which appears to be the repository of the State Government s power to exempt payment of tax. However nothing really turns on it in view of the several Amendment Acts by which the Schedules were amended from time to time - Indeed the Act was amended further with effect from 27th March 2002 by Act No.18 of 2002 i.e. the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act 2002 but the same being a post-millennium event is admittedly beyond the period under consideration i.e. 1998-99; hence we need not be too concerned with the latter amendment. It would appear from the conspectus of the statutory provisions as delineated above that there were two entries in the field at or about the period of the relevant assessment year i.e. sago and starch of any kind in Schedule I referred by us as Taxation Entry No.61 and products of millets (rice flour brokens and brans of cholam cumbu ragi thinai varagu samai kudiraivali milo and maize) in Schedule III which we are referring to as Exemption Entry No.8. Law is well settled that if in any statutory rule or statutory notification two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms - under the rules of interpretation it has to be understood that the special terms were not meant to be included in the general expression; alternatively it can be said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision the latter must prevail - it is thus emerged that Taxation Entry No.61 is relatable to starch of any kind whereas Exemption Entry No.8 relates to products of millet . The clarification vide Circular dated 8th October 1998 was issued in exercise of power conferred by the statute (i.e. Section 28-A of the Act). Whenever a clarification pursuant to an application made by a registered dealer as to the applicable rate of tax is issued under sub-section (1) or the Commissioner on his own clarifies any point concerning the rate of tax under the Act or the procedure relating to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under the Act is issued under sub-section (2) the object is to make the rate of tax explicit what is otherwise implicit - What the clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature therefore is bound to be retrospective. The impugned judgment is upheld albeit for reasons not assigned by the High Court. Finding no merit in the appeals the same is dismissed.
|