TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the date of insertion of entry relevant to mangalsutra. The entry relating to mangalsutra was, no doubt, inserted with effect from May 1, 1992 but manufacture thereof and use of gold therein could be prior to the amendment. In order to cover such cases of manufacture, the words "for any period" appear to have been used in the subject rule and were retained even after amendment. Therefore, in our considered view, the gold used in manufacture of mangalsutra prior to the date of amendment will also be entitled for set-off. In the above view of the matter, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 15-7-2010 - DAGA V.C. AND KATHAWALLA S.J. , JJ. The j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule C, Part I. Gold was covered by entry 1 of Schedule C, Part I of the BST Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment), (the assessing officer) passed an assessment order on December 4, 1993 for the period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 and granted set-off under rule 42-I of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ( the BST Rules , for short) and raised demand of Rs. 1,878. Not satisfied with the assessment order, the applicant preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Pune and challenged the levy of purchase tax under section 13AA and prayed for grant of set-off. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the applicant dismissed appeal vide his order dated June 26, 1995. Again not satisfied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in second appeal of the applicant and Misc. application filed by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), the applicant applied to the Tribunal for reference under section 61(1) of the BST Act. As stated earlier, the Tribunal vide its order dated 3rd May, 2005 referred the question of law to this court for consideration extracted in the opening part of this judgment. Submissions Mr. Surte, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee, submits that the expression for any period will embrace within itself the period of assessment from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, even though rule 42-I is amended with effect from May 1, 1992. He urged that mangalsutra was exempted even before and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim set-off under rule 42-I. Thus, it could not have been granted to the applicant by the assessing officer. The submission is that the notification itself indicates that the Legislature desired to make the inserted rule operative with effect from May 1, 1992. He, therefore, prayed that the question may be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Consideration Having heard rival contentions, the facts stated hereinabove are not in dispute. The entire question revolves around the interpretation of rule 42-I of the BST Rules, which came into force with effect from September 1, 1990. Rule 42-I, prior to its amendment, i.e., at the relevant time, was as under: 42-I. Drawback, set-off, etc., of purchase tax levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the BST Rules with its application to the assessment year 1990-91 as to whether amended sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of rule 42-I is retrospective so as to cover the assessment period with effect from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991. In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to refer to the Government notification dated May 1, 1992, which reads as under: Whereas the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action further to amend the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and to dispense with the condition of previous publication thereof under sub-section (4) of section 74 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bom. LI of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1170; wherein their Lordships have observed that in the interpretation of statutes the courts should always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should be given effect to. The same presumption is also applicable in the case of rules framed under the Act. The construction suggested by Mr. Sonpal, if accepted, the words for any period would become surplusage and would be rendered redundant. As ruled by the apex court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam AIR 1978 SC 17, no words should be considered redundant or surplusage in interpreting provisions of a statute or a rule. Applying the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
