TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out what is the effect of the notification, proceeded astray and tried to find out what the notification should have contained - when the statute, rule or any notification is unambiguously clear in its language, then there was no need to look into other aspect as to how the notification should have been framed – in State of Rajasthan and Another Versus Sarvotam Vegetables Products (and other appeals) [1996 (4) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has been held that Sub-section (5) of section 8 confers the power of exemption upon the State Government - As is well-known, almost every taxing enactment contains such a provision - The exemption under section 8(5) can be granted either with reference to dealers or class of dealers or with reference to goods or classes of goods. The exemption can be total or partial - It can also be subject to such condition as may be prescribed in that behalf - there is no condition in the notification and there could not have been any condition of producing form C or D for sales covered under sub-section (2) - petitioner's sale is not falling under sub-section (1) of section 8 and is falling under sub-section (2) of section 8 and since the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id contention was rejected by all the three authorities, i.e., assessing officer, appellate authority and the Tribunal and it has been held that for taking any benefit of the notification dated January 30, 1993, the dealer is required to submit form C or D as the case may be and the petitioner should have furnished form C without which it is not entitled to the benefit of the notification and consequently the petitioner has been levied with tax at 10 per cent/14.43 per cent creating a total liability of ₹ 54,96,61,740. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that all these three authorities committed serious error of law in interpreting the notification dated January 30, 1993 and ignored the fact that the notification was issued under sub-section (5) of section 8, which has overriding effect over other provisions of section 8 in view of the non obstante clause and which specifically provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this section (section 8), the State Government may grant any exemption in tax in respect of the sales by the dealer, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, if imposed, obviously under sub-section (5) of section 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1998] 109 STC 205 (Mad). 4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that taxing provision is subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and one is required to be covered by either of the sales falling in the category of sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act of the 1956 and that once one is liable to pay tax under section 8, then the provision of exemption applies and sub-section (4) of section 8 clearly provides that for sale or transaction made in course of inter-State trade or commerce, one is required to submit form C or D, as the case may be, and sub-section (4) clearly provides that sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes the requisite particulars in forms C and D and therefore, when such certificate is not furnished, sub-section (1) itself will not apply and thus, compliance with sub-section (4) is mandatory in nature. It is submitted that in view of the above reasons and in view of the judgment of honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarvotam Vegetables Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. (2A). . . (3) . . . (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner,- (a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by a duly authorized officer of the Government: Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, on the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (4) by the dealer if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8, in the case of goods other than declared goods, it shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher. As per clause (c) of sub-section (2), in the case of goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally shall be nil. The other provisions are not very much relevant for our purpose. 8. Sub-section (4) applies only to the sales covered under sub-section (1) and has no application to the sales which are covered by sub-section (2) of section 8 and therefore, requirement of furnishing forms C and D is for the transactions covered under sub-section (1) obviously, which are the sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to (1) the Government or (2) to a registered dealer other than the Government. No requirement of furnishing any form for the sale covered under sub-section (2) of section 8 may have obvious reason that the Government may issue such form as prescribed in the sales tax law and the same can be done by the registered dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was required to submit form C. In Sarvotam Vegetables Products case [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC), the writ petitioner's contention was that since the inter-State sale effected by the petitioner was covered by the exemption notification dated December 26, 1986 and another notification dated April 17, 1990, the petitioner was not required to produce form C for availing of the exemption provided under the notification and the petitioner, who initially tried to take benefit of tax exemption under the above notification by submitting spurious C forms, submitted that because of that reason no action could be taken against the petitioner as he was not under obligation to submit C form. In Sarvotam Vegetables Products' case [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC), the notification under consideration specifically gave benefit of concessional rate of tax for the sales covered only under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore, in that fact-situation, the honourable Supreme Court specifically held that charging section is section 8(1) and the sale must fall within the ambit of section 8(1) and then only one can claim concessional rate of tax under the notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notification dated January 30, 1993, all sales whether under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are covered by the notification dated January 30, 1993 and there can be levy of tax at the rate of four per cent per annum only. 12. It appears that the Tribunal, instead of reading the notification as such and finding out what is the effect of the notification, proceeded astray and tried to find out what the notification should have contained. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that when the statute, rule or any notification is unambiguously clear in its language, then there was no need to look into other aspect as to how the notification should have been framed. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC) itself clearly held as under (page 551 in 101 STC): Sub-section (5) of section 8 confers the power of exemption upon the State Government. As is well-known, almost every taxing enactment contains such a provision. The exemption under section 8(5) can be granted either with reference to dealers or class of dealers or with reference to goods or classes of goods. The exemption can be total or partial. It can also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Jute Mills [2007] 9 VST 444 (Patna), by the notification, concessional tax was granted for the transactions covered under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in that notification, there was no requirement of furnishing form C or D, then the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, of which one of the Members was honourable Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, (as he then was), after considering the case of Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC) held, that in a case, when the dealer claimed the benefit under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, but failed to produce certificate or declaration in form D, the same would fall under sub-section (2) of section 8 and by virtue of the notification, the rate of tax under that subsection too would only be three per cent and not 10 per cent as applied by the Commercial Taxes Officers in the impugned order. Meaning thereby in the present case also petitioner's sale is not falling under sub-section (1) of section 8 and is falling under sub-section (2) of section 8 and since the notification applies to the sales under sub-section (2) of section 8 fully, then in that situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
