TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court held that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point raised before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. In Director of Settlements A.P. and others v. M.R.Apparao and another [2002 (3) TMI 909 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that the decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered by, or that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. - The legislature has imposed the tax. The amounts collected may well be available to the legislature to be spent for the purposes mentioned therein and in the statement of objects and reasons. These are aspects which can be gone into only by the Supreme Court and not by this Court for accepting these submissions would in effect result in this Court holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mill’s case (1994 (10) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is not good law. - Decided against assessee. - VATAP No. 176 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - MR. S.J.VAZIFDAR AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sandee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the very provisions with which we are concerned. The question that arose in that case was whether the petitioner-sugar mill was liable to pay the purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers. The respondents therein contended that sugarcane was exempted from purchase tax inter-alia in view of section 4-B of the PGST Act. The Supreme Court noted the definitions in Section 2 of the PGST Act of the terms dealer , goods purchase sale and turnover . The Supreme Court also noted Section 4 of the PGST Act which was the main charging section and section 5 which defines the expression taxable turnover . Sections 4 and 4-B of the PGST Act, which were also noted, in so far as they are relevant, read as under:- 4. Incidence of taxation. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 5 and 6 every dealer except one dealing exclusively in goods declared tax - free under section 6 whose gross turnover during the year immediately proceeding the commencement of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales effected after the coming, into force of this Act and purchases made after the commencement of the East Punjab G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to agree. The said argument, in our opinion, is based upon an incorrect premise that purchase tax is levied by Section 4-B in the Act and not by any other provision. The said argument also ignores the fact that Section 4 levies tax not only upon all sales effected but also on purchases made . If the assumption underlying the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted then no purchase tax was leviable on Schedule C goods prior to introduction of Section 4-B. Similarly, no purchase tax should be leviable even now on Schedule C goods (Schedule C, even according to the counsel for petitioners, mentions goods subject to purchase tax) inasmuch as Section 4-B does not refer to Schedule C nor does Section 4-B levy purchase tax on the purchase of goods in Schedule C. In our opinion, the purpose of Section 4-B is altogether different. It is designed really to identify and affirm - in a broad sense, create - the levy of purchase tax in some cases and to provide for exemption from purchase tax in certain other specified situations. This is done in the interest of manufacturers-dealers, consuming public and other dealers - a common feature in almost all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess provisions providing exemptions. In the case of sugarcane, it being an agricultural produce - and in cases where it is sold by the grower himself - such sale is exempt from tax by virtue of Section 6 read with Schedule B. If so, the purchaser thereof is liable to pay tax on its purchase by virtue of Section 4(1). That is the position in the cases before us. Since Section 4-B does not apply to Schedule B goods, the said provision is not relevant to the petitioners. The purchase tax on sugarcane is levied by Section 4(1), since it being an agricultural produce, and said to be sold by growers themselves, is exempt from tax on its sale under Section 6. 6. Mr. Goel rightly did not even contend that the judgment is not applicable to the case before us. He, however, contended that the Supreme Court did not consider the argument which he developed before us. He contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as purchase tax is levied under the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953. He submitted that the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 being a special enactment fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same cannot be equated with the levy of purchase tax contemplated under Section 4 of the Finance Act. We do not find sufficient force in this argument to repel the contention of the appellant that the tax collected under Section 49(1)( b ) of the Sugarcane Act is the same as is contemplated under Section 4 of the Finance Act but confined to sugarcane. A perusal of Section 49(8) of the Sugarcane Act shows that a part of the amount of purchase tax collected under its sub-section (3) is utilised for the purpose of the Board and the Council as grant but subsection (8) of Section 49 does not, in any manner, indicate that the entirety of this collection under sub-section (1)( b ) of Section 49 is solely earmarked for the purpose of the expenditure of the Board or the Council. A perusal of Sections 6 and 9 of the Sugarcane Act clearly shows that the legislature has made separate provisions for the funds of the Board as well as the Council under the said Act, and only a portion of the collection under sub-section (1)( a ) of Section 49 is earmarked for these purposes; hence, it is clear that the balance of collection goes to the State Exchequer/General Fund. So, there is no merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or our consideration. In Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) different enactments fell for the consideration of the Supreme Court. 11. This is not even a case where the enactments considered in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) were identical to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 or that there were no difference between the two enactments. Section 49(8) of the Sugarcane Act which fell for consideration in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) expressly provides that a part of the amount of purchase tax collected under subsection (3) is to be utilized for the purpose of the Board and the Council as grant but did not indicate that the entirety of this collection was solely earmarked for the purpose of expenditure of the Board or the Council. Such a provision is absent in the enactments before us. Infact, the statement of object and reasons of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 expressly state as under:- Statement of Objects and Reasons- With the promulgation of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, with effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
