9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (11) TMI 461 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhere the State of Tamil Nadu has already recovered Central sales tax for the same transaction from assessee therefore they are not liable to pay the State sales tax to State of M.P. for the same transaction? Held that - It is obvious that if the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner gets decided against the appellants and if the appellants have to file a further appeal before the Board of Revenue they will have to join all necessary parties for thrashing out this problem before the Board which will adjudicate the dispute between the two States namely State of M.P. on one hand and the State of Tamil Nadu on the other hand and under these circumstances the procedure laid down by this Court in its decision reported in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India 1997 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA will have to be followed. If such an appeal gets filed before the Board of Revenue and all necessary parties are joined then the present order of stay will continue on the same terms and conditions till that appeal also is decided by the Board of Revenue after hearing all the parties concerned. Thus the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Issues:
Challenge to validity of certain provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and imposition of intra-State sales tax and penalty on transactions. Analysis: The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the imposition of intra-State sales tax on certain transactions and penalty under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. They argued that the provisions of sections 2(n)(ii), 2(r), 2(t), and 5 of the Act were ultra vires the State Legislature as they contravened the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and entry 92-A of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the challenged provisions. It held that the definitions of 'sale,' 'taxable turnover,' and 'turnover' under the Act were valid and not subject to challenge. The High Court also noted that the petitioners could seek remedies before the authorities created under the Act, and therefore, there was no merit in the petition. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that since the State of Tamil Nadu had already recovered Central sales tax for the same transaction, they should not be liable to pay State sales tax to the State of M.P. The Supreme Court considered this argument and ordered a stay of the collection of M.P. State sales tax from the appellants until their appeal before the Appellate Commissioner of Sales Tax was decided. The appellants were required to demonstrate to the M.P. authorities that they had paid Central sales tax in Tamil Nadu for the same transaction. The Court also ordered a stay of penalty during this period. The Supreme Court recognized that if the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was decided against the appellants, they would have to file a further appeal before the Board of Revenue, involving both States. The Court directed that the procedure laid down in a previous decision be followed in such a scenario. It was emphasized that all necessary parties must be joined for the Board to adjudicate the dispute between the two States. The stay of collection and penalty would continue on the same terms until the appeal before the Board of Revenue was decided. Lastly, the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months. The appeal before the Supreme Court was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.
|
