Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 524 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssuance of C-Forms - validity of Notification dated 11.10.2017 - interpretation of statute - amendment and scope of the word 'goods' - Situation of CST post GST - HELD THAT:- In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Printers (Mysore) Ltd.'s case [1994 (2) TMI 261 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is clearly held that the use of the expression ‘goods’ referred to in the first half of Section 8(3)(b), i.e., on first three occasions can be understood in the sense it is defined in Section 2(d) of the CST Act, whereas the expression “goods” in the second half of the clause, i.e., on the fourth occasion does not and cannot be understood in the sense it is defined in Section 2(d) of the CST Act, as it refers to the manufactured goods, in the case of the writ petitioners, their end products need not be 'goods' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the CST Act. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that this meaning has been assigned to the word ‘goods’ appearing in the second half of Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, by the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts of that case, as in that case, the benefit of Section was given to the printers publishing the 'newspapers' who were not liable to any tax on the sale of 'newspapers' published by them or that they were enjoying the freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The only difference in the definition of pre and post amendment of ‘goods’ as given under Section 2(d) of the CST Act is that earlier the definition was having a wider connotation, empassing into it almost all types of goods, except five goods mentioned therein, i.e., newspapers, actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities, whereas after the amendment the restricted meaning has been given to the word ‘goods’ which shall include the six items only, which are presently there in the Act. The dealers are entitled to continue to be registered under Section 7(2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether they are liable to pay any tax to State or not. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that, since the dealers are no more liable to pay tax under the JVAT Act, in view of the fact that the word “goods” used in Section 2(i) of the CST Act defining the 'Sales tax law' shall mean only those six goods as defined under Section 2(d) of the CST Act, their registration under Section 7(2) of the Act shall come to an automatic end - thus, the very reasoning for issuance of the circular dated 11.10.2017 has no legs to stand in the eyes of law and the said circular cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Application allowed.
|