Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 925 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of tax on EXIM Scrips - rejection of adjudication merely because the ground in that regard was not mentioned in the Second appeal memo - issue related to FY 1993-94 and 1995-96 - HELD THAT:- Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (MSTT) was of the view that the relevant documents available on record were not sufficient for adjudication of the additional ground that was sought to be canvassed by the applicant. It would have certainly required leading of additional evidence. We find that the applicant never made any application for leading any additional evidence to substantiate its claim that the Exim Scrips were in fact surrendered to the Government and were not sold. In fact, in the order of MSTT dated 8th December, 2006, it was specifically contended by the applicant that since the additional ground is a pure question of law, it could be raised at any time in the appeal proceedings and therefore the MSTT ought to have entertained the additional ground. Having found that the additional ground was not a pure question of law, but required additional documents and evidence which needed to be verified, produced and appreciated, we do not think that the MSTT was unjustified in not entertaining the additional ground regarding surrender of Exim Scrips - the MSTT was legally justified in not adjudicating on the point regarding levy of tax on Exim Scrips. The question answered in the affirmative and against the applicant and in favour of the revenue. Interpretation of statute - Section 41 (2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and in Notification entry 39 under Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - whether plastic powder is not a chemical? - contravention by issuing declarations of T/TT Forms against his purchases of plastic powder or not? - issue related to F.Y. 1993-94 - HELD THAT:- What Section 41(1) inter alia provides is that in public interest, the State Government may exempt any specified class of sales or purchases from payment of the whole or any part of any tax payable under the provisions of the BST Act. Then Section 41(2) stipulates that where any dealer or person has purchased any goods under a declaration given by him under any of the notifications issued under Section 41(1) and, (a) any of the conditions subject to which such exemption was granted; or (b) any of the recitals or the conditions of the declaration, are not complied with, for any reason whatsoever, or, in any other case, where such dealer or person was not entitled to issue such declaration; then without prejudice to the other provisions of the BST Act, such dealer or person shall be liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of the goods so purchased. How the purchase tax has to be levied is also thereafter set out. P.P. powder can never be termed as a “chemical” so as to fall within Notification Entry 39 issued under Section 41 of the BST Act. When one is to apply the common parlance test, it is clear the same cannot be described as a “chemical”. It is not in dispute that plastic granules / powder is obtained from crude oil and in scientific terms would be a “chemical” obtained in refining of crude oil. It also cannot be disputed that plastics are produced in the chemical industry. Though plastics are products of petrochemicals, these are not chemical intermediaries. P.P. powder cannot be termed as a “chemical” and therefore would not fall within Notification Entry 39 issued under Section 41 of the BST Act - the question will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the applicant and in favour of the revenue.
|