TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of this Court reported in Shiv Sainath Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1996] 103 STC 500 in which the question that has been raised in the revision petition about the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, 1956 with reference to notification dated March 8, 1988, issued by the State Government under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. Under the said notification all kinds of footwear not manufactured or marketed by large scale or medium scale industries up to the value of Rs. 20, were exempted. 4.. The case of the revenue under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act was that the exemption under notification dated March 8, 1988 was not a general and unconditional exemption under the State laws and therefore, no benefit could be availed under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 5. It was the contention of the revenue in Shiv Sainath's case [1996] 103 STC 500 (Raj), was that fixing of the value on goods and grant of exemption only to the mall-scale industries amounted to two conditions under which alone benefit could be availed under the Act of 1954, therefore, the exemption would not exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the respondents by overruling the objections as to maintainability of the writ petition inspite of existence of alternative remedy by pointing out the circumstances in which the existence of alternative remedy in the present case cannot be considered to be equally efficacious alternative remedy. 10.. The Court has opined that the matter relates to considering the question whether the decision of this Court which governs the issue arising out of these proceedings and binds all subordinate Tribunals within the State stands impliedly overruled by a later decision of Supreme Court which is stated to have taken a different view and determination of entire issue on one way or other depends solely on this aspect of the matter, concerning effect of decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 355. 11.. The primary contention on behalf of revenue in this case has been that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 432 has since been overruled by the Supreme Court on a review application in that very case also other group of issues including that of Hindustan Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of shoes falling within the exemption net which are exempted generally and nconditionally. It is not necessary for availing exemption under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, that all goods falling broadly in one description must be subjected to exemption. It is enough even if, only a class or category of goods of broad category is enjoying exemption generally and cannot be treated as goods subject to exemption only on specified conditions. 15. This would necessitate close examination of two cases of Pine Chemicals Ltd. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to them first Pine Chemicals' case [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC) and second Pine Chemicals' case [1995] 96 STC 355 (SC). 16.. The notification, which was in consideration before the Supreme Court in first and second Pine Chemicals' case was issued under Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, under the Government order exemption was granted from State sales tax, by way of incentive to a class of dealers on purchase of raw material and sale of finished products for a period of five years from the date the unit claiming exemption goes into production. As the notification suggests it referred to no particular goods or class of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification of the Government order issued by Jammu and Kashmir Government which was in question before the Supreme Court had referred to only identification of manufacturer and it was circumscribed by two conditions namely the date on which such manufacturer has gone into production and sales of the turnover on which exemption is claimed must have been made within a period of five years from the said date of the commencement of the production. 22.. The Court held in the first case that the manufacturer is entitled to get benefit for a period of five years from the date his unit comes into production and consequently the appeal of Pine Chemicals was allowed. 23.. The application was moved for review. The matter was again examined by the Supreme Court on review application. The Court on review said: "We must give due regard and attach due meaning to the expression 'generally' which occurs in the sub-section and which expression has been defined in the explanation. If the said expression had not been there, it could probably have been possible to argue that inasmuch as the goods sold by a particular manufacturer-dealer are exempt from the State tax in his hands, they must equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers in certain circumstances attached with the dealer in respect of sale of goods manufactured by him, if they are sold within the specified period from the date of commencement of commercial production by the dealer and these circumstances did not relate to identification of goods or class or category of goods selected for exemption. 27.. However, the Court laid stress and reiterated the position that exemption envisaged under sub-section (2-A) of section 8 is eligible to the goods or class of goods or category of goods, but is not related to the circumstances laying down the specification for selecting the dealer to whom exemption under the State is extended. In such circumstances, exemption is qua the dealer specifying the certain conditions or existence of certain circumstances in the case of the dealers chosen for availing the benefit. Such exemption under the State Law does not invoke sub-section (2-A) of section 8 of the CST Act. But, where the conditions or circumstances spelt out for the purpose of classification of goods which are to be subjected to exemption, for availing exemption unconditionally, the ratio of first Pine Chemicals case [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC) relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification under the Act of 1954 for the present purpose in its relevant part reads as under: "In exercise of powers conferred by section 4(2), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the State Government hereby exempts from tax with immediate effect, under the said Act, the sale or purchase of the following all kinds of footwear, excluding the footwear made of leather, upto the value of Rs. 100." 35.. We find that item No. 5 in the notification in question refers only to goods and goods alone and does not refer to any condition or circumstances limiting exemption of class of shoes which are not made of leather and where value does not exceed Rs. 100. Thus, it is clear that all shoes which fall in the specified class of shoes in item "J" of notification are generally exempt and not on specified conditions. 36.. It may be seen that sub-section (2-A) of section 8 does not restrict the exemption under the State laws only to the goods generally, but it envisages that exemption is available to goods, or any class of goods or category of goods generally. Thus, such exemption which may be available under the State law to a class of goods or category of goods also is entitled to benefit under- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
