TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price of the gas sold by the respondent to GAIL. Levy of tax - Entitlement for exemption notifications issued under Section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 as well as under section 5(2) of the VAT Act, 2003 - Sale of kerosene and LPG by the ONGC to various OMCs and inter-State sale of LPG in bulk sold outside the State - The relevant entries in respect of the exemption claimed under the VAT Act, 2003 are entry Nos. 53 and 69 divided into two parts 1) for the period between 11.06.2008 to 02.10.2008 and 2) for the period between 03.10.2008 onwards and with respect to the Central Sales Tax is entry No. 55. As per the exemption notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 and so long as the Act, 1969 was in force, on sale of kerosene for domestic use sold for Public Distribution System the whole of the sales tax was exempted and on sale of LPG (domestic) no tax exceeding the rate of 14% can be levied - Held that:- the entries in question of the Schedule to the respective exemption notifications issued under the Act, 1969 and VAT Act, 2003 are required to be interpreted. Considering the relevant entries and the wordings used in the relevant entries more particularly Entry N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whole of the tax under the VAT Act, 2003, pre 02.10.2008 which was prevailing at the relevant time. So far as post 03.10.2008 the entry amended and as per amended entry, the exemption is provided for the sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State which is not the present case, therefore, the ONGC shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of tax under the VAT Act, 2003. Even the ONGC is not entitled to exemption from tax on the inter-State sales of LPG, effected by the ONGC from the Stat of Gujarat to other States as the exemption is available on inter-State sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State only and liable to pay VAT and is not exempt from more of the tax as per Entry No.16 of the Schedule to the Exemption Notification dated 31.03.2006, as amended and issued under section 5(2) of the GVAT Act. Levy of penalty - Section 45(2)(c) of the Act, 1969 - Held that:- As per sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, 1969, the penalty is leviable if it appears to the Commissioner, a dealer has concealed the particulars of any transaction or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of any transaction liable to tax. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r For the Respondent : Mr N Venkatraman, Sr. Adv. With Mr Nitin K Mehta, Adv. JUDGMENT ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah ) [1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Tax Appeals and Special Civil Application, all these Tax Appeals and Special Civil Application are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Tax Appeal No.384/2014 [2.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in Second Appeal No.103/2010 in respect of the period 2004-05, the original respondent - State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax has preferred the present Tax Appeal No.384/2014. Tax Appeal No.380/2014 [2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Second Appeal No.91/2010 in respect of the period 2005-06, the original respondent - State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax has preferred the present Tax Appeal No.380/2014. Tax Appeal No.1358/2014 [2.2] Feeling aggrieved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No.435/2014 [2.9] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Second Appeal No.328/2012 in respect of the period 2007-08, the original respondent - State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax has preferred the present Tax Appeal No.435/2014. Tax Appeal No.436/2014 [2.10] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Second Appeal No.396/2012 in respect of the period 2006-07, the original respondent - State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax has preferred the present Tax Appeal No.436/2014. Tax Appeal No.437/2014 [2.11] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Second Appeal No.395/2011 in respect of the period 2006-07, the original respondent - State of Gujarat through Commissioner of Commercial Tax has preferred the present Tax Appeal No.437/2014. Tax Appeal No.468/2014 [2.12] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Special Civil Application No.5182/2014. [3.0] At the outset it is required to be noted that in respective appeals, all filed by the State of Gujarat, following substantial questions of law arise. 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that processing and transportation charges not received by the respondent from Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) cannot be included as part of the sale price of the gas sold by the respondent to GAIL? 2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of kerosene by the respondent herein to Oil Marketing Companies falls within the meaning of the phrase Sales of Kerosene for domestic use sold for public distribution system and is therefore exempt from the whole of tax under Entry 33 of the schedule to the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and is otherwise exempt from the whole of tax under Entry 173 of the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and hence no tax can be levied on the discount amount of such sale? 3) Whether in the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that in respective appeals the dispute is with respect to erstwhile Entry Nos.33, 70 and 173 of the Schedule to the Exemption Notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 as well as the relevant Entry Nos.53 and 69 of the Schedule to the Exemption Notification No.(GHN35) VAT-2006-S. 5(2)(a)TH, dated 31.3.2006, issued under section 5(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as VAT Act ) as well as Entry No.55 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the goods in question are kerosene and the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) for domestic use. The relevant entries are as under: Sr. No. Class of Sales or Purchases Exemption Whether of whole or Part of tax _________________ Ref. to Schedule Entry for goods given exemption Conditions 33. Sales of Kerosene for domestic use sold for Public distribution system. Whole of Sales Tax _________________ II A 33 Nil 70. Sales of liquefied Petroleum Gas (Domestic) To the extent to which the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. To the extent to which amount of tax exceeds four paise in the rupee. Nil 69 1162008 to 2102008 (GHN32) 1062008 Sales of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) for domestic use. EII87 Whole of tax Nil 69 3102008 onwards (GHN45) 3102008 Sales of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) for domestic use by the consumers of the state. EII87 Whole of tax Nil [4.0] Facts leading to the present tax appeals in nutshell are as under: [4.1] A Joint Venture consisting of ONGC, Reliance Industries Ltd. and British Gas Exploration and Production India Ltd., has been formed for the development of (i) Panna Mukta and (ii) Tapti, Oil and Gas Fields located in Bombay High, both offshore India, which has, in turn, signed a Production Sharing Contract ('PSC' for short) with the Government of India, wherein, British Gas has been designated as the Operator for undertaking the exploration, drilling, production and selling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; (iii) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; (iv) IBP Company Ltd; (v) Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; (vi) GAIL (India) Ltd; and (vii) Petronet LNG. That after the VAT Act came into force and consequently Gujarat Sales Tax Act came to be repealed, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Guj.1 of 2005), the State Government issued an Exemption Certificate and exempted from payment of the tax to the extent specified in column (3) of the Schedule appended thereto, to the class of sales or purchases specified in column (2) of the said Schedule. That as per Entry No.53 vide Notification dated 02.09.2006 and from 02.09.2006 onwards on sale of kerosene sold through a public distribution system, there was exemption from payment of whole of the tax. As per Entry No.53 as per the Notification dated 19.01.2007 for the period between 19.01.2007 to 10.04.2011, on sale of goods declared as of special importance in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there was an exemption to the extent to which amount of tax exceeds 4 paise in the rupee. As per Entry No.69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 34(12) of the VAT Act. That by impugned respective judgments, the learned Tribunal has held that (i) that the sale of kerosene by the respondent herein to Oil Marketing Companies falls within the meaning of the phrase Sales of Kerosene for domestic use sold for public distribution system and is therefore exempt from the whole of tax under Entry 33 of the schedule to the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and is otherwise exempt from the whole of tax under Entry 173 of the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and hence no tax can be levied on the discount amount of such sale; (ii) that the sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas by the respondent to Oil Marketing Companies falls within the meaning of the phrase Sales of liquefied petroleum gas (domestic) as used in Entry 70 of the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and hence no tax exceeding 14 paise in the rupee can be levied on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas sold by the respondent in bulk to Oil Marketing Companies; (iii) that the sale of kerosene by the opponent herein to Oil Marketing Companies falls within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax exceeding the rate of 14% can be levied on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas sold by the respondent in bulk to Oil Marketing Companies? 4) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the respondent is not liable to pay any penalty under section 45(2)(c) and section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Act, 1969? 5) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the levy of interest on provisional refund is without authority of law? 6) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of kerosene by the opponent herein to Oil Marketing Companies falls within the meaning of the phrase Kerosene sold through the public distribution system and is therefore exempt from the whole of tax under Entry 53 of the notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Section 8(1) of CST Act? 7) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, the inter-State sales of LPG, effected by the appellant from the State of Gujarat to other Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has materially erred in holding that processing and transportation charges not received by the ONGC from Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) cannot be included as part of 'sale price' of the gas sold by the ONGC to GAIL. Relying upon the definition of 'sale' contained in section 2(28) of the erstwhile Gujarat Sales Tax Act and the definition of 'sale price' contained in section 2(29), it is vehemently submitted that 'sale price' means the amount of value consideration paid or payable to a dealer for any sale made including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof. It is submitted that in the present case the ONGC claims that it is not liable to pay sales tax on the transportation and processing charges, since neither it has raised the said charges against GAIL nor does GAIL pay the said charges to ONGC. It is submitted that however what is being lost sight is the fact of the receipt of the said charges by ONGC in respect of the goods in question before the delivery thereof and that therefore the said charges are necessarily required to be considered as part of or included in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of kerosene on declared price through the distribution system by the Central or State Government. It is submitted that clause 2(e) of the Order, 1993 lays down an important characteristic of kerosene which is required to be made 'distinguishable' from other kerosene to be sold or distributed under parallel marketing system, as per clause 8 of the Order, 1993. It is submitted that in the present case, kerosene which is sold by ONGC to OMCs is neither kerosene with the specified characteristic nor is in a distinguishable form. It is submitted that it is the OMCs which make kerosene meant for Public Distribution System in a distinguishable form, i.e. Blue Kerosene, to be sold to fair price shop owners, whereas other type of Kerosene, i.e. colourless kerosene, is meant for industrial and commercial purposes. [6.5] It is submitted that as provided in clause 3 of Order, 1993, restriction on use of kerosene does not apply to ONGC, since kerosene supplied under Public Distribution System cannot be used for any purpose other than cooking and illumination, which restrictions are very much applicable to the entities which are part of Public Distribution System. It is submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in catena of decisions while interpreting the exemption notification and taxing statute the Court is required to adopt a strict interpretation and not purposive interpretation, more particularly when wording in a notification are clear and unambiguous and the same has to be strictly construed and one is expected to stretch the word or to add or subtract words in order to grant / deny the benefit of exemption. Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to principles / law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the exemption notifications in a taxing statute and/or the parameters to be applied by the Court while interpreting a taxing statute. 1. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Modi Sugar Mill Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1041 (Para 11) 2. Novopan India Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 606 (Para 16) 3. Saraswati Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-III (2011) 270 ELT 465 (SC) (Para 7) [6.8] It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to tax the capital gains arising from the sale of share capital of one CGP Investments (Holdings) Ltd., a company which was a tax resident in the Cayman Islands on the basis that the said foreign company holds the underlying Indian assets in Hutchison Essar Ltd and that therefore the word 'through' in section 9 should mean 'in consequence' so as to enlarge the meaning thereof to include income derived even indirectly from such transfer even though in abroad. It is submitted that while turning down the said submission of the revenue, it is observed and held that one has to give effect to the language of the section when it is unambiguous. [6.10] It is submitted that therefore the ONGC is not entitled to exemption from payment of Sales Tax in respect of Kerosene under Entry 33 in-as-much as ONGC sells Kerosene to OMCs in bulk and not in Public Distribution System for resale thereof to various dealers. Similarly, ONGC is not entitled to the benefit of Entry 70 in respect of LPG inasmuch as, sale of LPG in bulk by ONGC to OMCs is for the purpose of resale thereof and not for domestic purpose. It is submitted that similarly, the ONGC is also not entitled to the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay High Court in case of Bashir Oil Mills vs. Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and others reported in 1993 (Vol. 90) Sales Tax Cases, 195, is also totally misconceived and erroneous. It is submitted that in the case before the Bombay High Court, the High Court was dealing with the erstwhile provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which had provided that if goods (oil cake) in the said case are generally exempt (i.e. unconditionally or without any condition), its inter-State sales of oil cakes would also be exempt from tax. It is submitted that in the present case, firstly LPG was not generally exempt, since what was exempt was the sale of LPG 'for domestic use' and that too 'by consumers of the State' and secondly, sub-section (2A) of section 8 is now no more on a statute book. [6.13] It is submitted that apart from above, one is also required to keep in mind the provision of sub-section (1A) of section 6 of the Central Sales Act, 1966. It is submitted that as per the said provision, inter-State sale of a particular commodity is liable to sales tax, even though, intra-State sale of the very commodity is exempt from tax liability u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1994 (Vol. 94) STC 422, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed that section 11B before its amendment nowhere provided for payment of interest on the unpaid tax amount as found on final assessment from the date of the filing of the return under section 7 of the Act. [6.16] It is submitted that in the present case by virtue of the provisions of section 47(2A)(a) of GST Act, as well as by virtue of the provisions of section 42(1) of the GVAT Act, Appellant State is entitled to get interest on the provisional refund amount which was ultimately found not due and payable to ONGC, for the period during which ONGC had retained the said provisional amount of refund. It is submitted that the authority for levy of interest flows from the above provisions of the GST Act and the GVAT Act and that therefore, the same cannot be considered as without authority of law, as held by the learned Tribunal. [6.17] It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deleting the penalty under section 45(2) (c) of section 45(6) of the GST Act and under section 38(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a Joint Venture arrangement and the gas was sold to Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL), a nominee of Government of India, by the Joint Venture. c. As a part of contractual obligation the JV has to both transport and process gas and then redeliver to GAIL. d. ONGC in its individual capacity as a separate service provider has undertaken both to transport and process the gas for the JV, later to be redelivered to GAIL at Hazira. This role is different than its role as a partner of the JV under which the gas is sold. Thus he is in different roles, (a) as a service provider (for which service tax is paid) and (b) as a seller of gas (for which sales tax / VAT is paid). e. The contractual arrangement to transport and process was entered into only between the Joint Venture partners and ONGC. GAIL is not a party to this contractual arrangement. f. Consequently, the invoice for consideration for rendition of transportation and processing services were raised by the respondent only on the Joint Venture partners. For rendition of those services the respondent had also charged service tax, once the activity was brought within the Finance Act, 1994 over and above the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchase of gas under the Production Sharing Contract from the JV partners. d. This payment is neither made by GAIL, nor on behalf of GAIL, for the sale of gas by the JV partners to GAIL. The consideration towards processing and transportation had already formed part of the sale price charged from GAIL on which GST has been paid. The contracted price fixed by Government is $ 3.11 per mmbtu. This is the only price which can be charged and recovered from GAIL under the Production Sharing Contract. ONGC is recovering the entire $ 3.11 per mmbtu from GAIL and paying GST on the entire amount. There is no additional consideration paid or payable by Buyer / GAIL or by any other person on its behalf to ONGC for providing these services of transportation and processing of gas. e. Finally this issue has been raised by the revenue only for two Assessment Years namely 2004-05 and 2005-06. This issue has not been raised for the subsequent years even though the transactions have remained the same. Thus the appellant has accepted the claim of the respondent principally. Making above submissions it is requested to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law No.1 against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r public distribution system is as under: FLOW CHART OF SYSTEM OF PDS KEROSENE 1. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas allocates kerosene for PDS on quarterly basis. 2. Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas makes Oil Company wise and State wise allocation. 3. Director of Food and Civil Supplies of Government of Gujarat intimates Indian Oil Corporation which is a State Level Coordinator for PDS about district wise allocation of kerosene. 4. Indian Oil Corporation informs Government Oil Companies about district wise allocation amongst the Government Oil Companies. 5. Government Oil Companies intimate Collector about wholesale dealer wise allocation. 6. Collector or District Supply Officer advises Thasildars/sub Collectors about allocation to each retail ration shops. 7. Monthly Distribution Plan Meeting is held wherein representatives of all Oil Producing Companies meet and finalize the company wise supply of petroleum products to Government Oil Companies. 8. Indents placed by Government Oil Companies. 9. Goods Supplied to Government Oil Companies. 10. Government Oil Companies submit actual upliftment against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - ONGC has further submitted that both kerosene and LPG are precious natural resources. It is submitted that Part-IV of the Constitution deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is submitted that Articles 36 to 51 come under Part-IV. It is submitted that Article 39 obligates the policy principles which need to be followed by the State. It mandates securing of certain benefits to various cross section of the society and direct that the policy be framed in such a way so as to secure the catalogued benefits by Article 39(a) to (f) of the Constitution of India. [7.7] It is submitted that Article 39 obligates the State to direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good . It is submitted that the said Article deals with two vital aspect in producing an Egalitarian Society. It is submitted that it mandates when it comes to material resources of a community, the policy relating to ownership, control and its distribution should be so framed as to achieve its best and to subserve the common goods. It is submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - ONGC has submitted that the following factors would lead to the conclusion that the ONGC while selling the kerosene and LPG is entitled to the exemption under the respective exemption Entries. (1) Both kerosene and LPG are precious natural resources and are governed by Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (2) The entire supply chain is controlled and monitored by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG). (3) In the case of kerosene which goes through the Public Distribution System, allocations are made state wise, district wise, oil marketing company wise and oil producing company wise. (4) The supply price of LPG is different and distinct between domestic and nondomestic industrial use. (5) In the case of kerosene, respondents have supplied the entire lot exclusively for public distribution. In the case of LPG, it has been supplied both for domestic and for nondomestic but on identified allocable basis. Since the assessable values are different, even at the threshold, before the goods are dispatched by the respondent, the quantities are identified for domestic and nondomestic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry 55 of the III Schedule to the K. VAT Act is identically worded Kerosene Oil sold through Public Distribution System . (14) The Core Ministry viz. MoPNG vide its communication dated 23.07.2013 had again clarified that the entire supply chain of PDS Kerosene would include the supply made by refineries / fractionators to OMCs like the respondent (fractionators) and similarly in the case of LPG, the supply chain of LPG for domestic use, starts from the procurement of bulk LPG through imports or from refineries / fractionators / OMCs to the Bottling Plant and thereafter, sale of LPG for domestic use in Cylinders to the Consumers. (15) Vide Para 4 of the same communication, it clarified that PDS Kerosene includes Kerosene supplied by Refiners like the respondent for ultimate sale of PDS Kerosene through Public Distribution System and similarly LPG for domestic use include LPG supplied in bulk by Refiners like the respondent to Oil Marketing Companies. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions it is vehemently submitted by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - ONGC that while selling kerosene LPG by ONGC to OMCs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prakash Metal Crafts Industries vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [Manu/MP/0293/2015]. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid three judgments, the entire sale of LPG both under the GST and VAT regimes and the sale of Kerosene for Public Distribution System under the GST would stand completely exempted from tax even applying plain or literal construction. It is submitted that so far as sale of Kerosene under the VAT Act is concerned, the expression used is, through Public Distribution System instead of for Public Distribution System . It is submitted that difference between for and through may not really matter and for any reason, if the expression through is sought to be interpreted as the supplying entities should form part of the Public Distribution System, even then, that test would get satisfied. It is submitted that for any reason, the expression 'through' would demand the ONGC to be part of the supply chain of Public Distribution, then the ONGC would squarely satisfy such a test. It is submitted that as submitted hereinabove and considering the supply chain of Kerosene and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts cannot lose sight of the intention of the Government in issuing such notifications. It is not a case of liberal construction of such notification but purposive construction of such notification when a benefit is conferred, keeping in mind the historical background with a social objective, effect must be given to such notification to achieve such object. The courts cannot play such construction on such notification to negate the benefit flowing therefrom on the premise of strict construction. When an attempt is made to deprive the legitimate benefits, due to persons who belong to weaker sections of the society, a greater responsibility is cast on the courts to see that this section of the Society gets their due by the process of purposive interpretation of such notification . On the aspect of purposive construction of an exemption notification, Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC has also relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Ramanujam Chettiar vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1982 (Mad) 261. It is submitted that while dealing with Sugar as an essential commodity a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 578 it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that notification should not only be confined to its grammatical or ordinary parlance, but it should also be construed in the light of the context . It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the need to derive the intent from a contractual scheme. Relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes it is submitted that as held by the Karnataka High Court an interpretation which makes the exemption illusory and has the effect of giving by one hand and taking away by the other should be avoided. Where the words of exemption are not defined, the proper course is not to give them the widest meaning, but find out the true meaning with reference to the context, by reading the exemption notification as a whole and by keeping in view, the object and purpose of the exemption and consequences of different interpretation . It is therefore submitted that applying the above principles, if the intention is discerned, and a contextual interpretation is given, the supplies of Kerosene for Public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) was brought to counter the argument of the assesse that since in the earlier sales tax regime only the sale at the first point was taxable and subsequent sales were exempt from the local sales tax, the subsequent inter-State sales should also be exempted from CST and thus, by this sub-section (1A) of section 6, the legislature intended to brush aside any argument regarding non-leviability of CST if state tax was not leviable. It is submitted that it is pertinent to note that this sub-section would be applicable only if there is no leviability of tax under state laws meaning thereby if a particular sale is held not to be chargeable under a particular state law, the same would still be liable for tax under CST Act and thus, this sub-section does not cover a situation where tax is leviable or chargeable on a sale under state laws, but is exempted or has NIL rate of duty. [7.15] Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan Anr. reported in (2004)10 SCC 1; Kaniska Trading v. Union of India reported in (1995)1 SCC 274 and Wallace Four Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned from the schedule entry read with exemption notification, if any. Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that in the present case the rate of tax on LPG after giving effect to the exemption Rate of tax on LPG under the GVAT Act is as under: 1. LPG is not covered under any specific entry in Schedule I II. Therefore, would be covered under entry 87 of Schedule-II liable to 15% tax [including 2.5% additional tax] 2. LPG for Domestic use is declared goods under section 14 of the CST Act, 1956. Therefore, entry 55 of the exemption notification under section 5(2) of the VAT Act applies to sale of LPG for domestic Use. Therefore, rate of tax on local sales of LPG for domestic use stands reduced to 5% [including additional tax] 3. Thereafter, on 10.06.2008 the State Government issued notification for total exemption from tax for sale of LPG for domestic use. Entry 69 came to be inserted for this purpose. Thus, the rate of tax on local sales of LPG for domestic use became Nil with effect from 11.06.2008. 4. Thereafter on 03.10.2008 entry 69 came t0 be amended. The words for use by the consumers of the State came to be added in the entry. But afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2%, the central sales tax rate would be 2%. Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC has further submitted that it is further pertinent to highlight that the exemption notification both under Kerosene and LPG have no conditions attached thereto and from the notification it is clear that under the column 'condition' it is clearly mentioned 'nil' and thus, even as per the notification, there are 'nil' conditions attached thereto. The use of the expression 'by the consumer of the state', itself is not a condition as sought to be argued by the appellant. It is further submitted that the state or the authorities under the state do not have the power to make any order in respect of inter-state sales and therefore, the use or omission of this expression cannot empower the state make the notification applicable to territories beyond the state. It is submitted that hence, even if the said expression was not there, the notification issued by State of Gujarat can only be applicable for consumers of the State of Gujarat and it is only pursuant to section 8(1) of CST Act, that this exemption notification is applicable to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehemently submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General that though the said invoices referred to supply by SKO (PDS), the same was not at the declared price and that kerosene sold thereunder was not all the specified type of kerosene as per Clause 2(e) read with Clause 8 of the Order, 1993. It is submitted that as such the basic price of kerosene shown in the said invoice is ₹ 21,671.81 per KL, which means ₹ 21.67 per litre, as against the real price of PDS kerosene about ₹ 7.28 per litre, around that time. [8.2] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the ONGC that as, as per Notification No.4/2005 dated 01.03.2005 there is a excise exemption and the ONGC is exempted from the payment of excise duty and therefore, the ONGC is not liable to pay the sales tax / value added tax on sale of the kerosene by ONGC to OMCs is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General that merely because the ONGC is exempt from the payment of excise duty with reference to LPG for supply to domestic consumers, the same cannot ipso facto exempt ONGC from the payment of State Sales Tax. [8.3] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the learned Seni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able law. [8.5] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Sample enduse certificates issued by the OMCs suggesting that Kerosene and LPG have been sold for Public Distribution System purpose and domestic consumers only, it is submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General that on the basis of the said certificates one cannot conclude that the very quantity of Kerosene and LPG sold by ONGC to OMCs in bulk, had been ultimately used for Public Distribution System and domestic purpose only. It is submitted that in fact, at the end of OMCs, there is no segregation or earmarking of Kerosene and LPG, having been received in bulk from ONGC, on one hand and from other sources on the other. It is submitted that even otherwise what is required to be considered is the interpretation of the respective entries and the wordings used therein. [8.6] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (Supra) by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ONGC, with respect to applicability of public trust doctrine is concerned and relying upon the said decision the contention on behalf of the ONGC that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trine for contending that it is because of the said doctrine that it is not liable to pay Sales Tax with reference to its sale of kerosene and OPG to OMCs. It is submitted that on the contrary, ONGC is obliged to honour any legitimate levy and collection of State Sales Tax dues, regardless of the aforesaid doctrine. It is submitted that so far as the power of taxation of the State is concerned, the same is sovereign, flowing from Entry 54 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India and the said power cannot be made subservient by invoking the 'Public Trust Doctrine'. It is submitted that the provisions of State Sales Tax legislations aim at augmenting the State's exchequer by levying and collecting Sales Tax for the purpose of utilizing the same for the benefit of the public at large. It is submitted that thus, the purpose of collecting sales tax under the State legislations and the purpose of fixing the maximum price beyond which essential commodities cannot be sold under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is different and none of the said two can be downplayed by bringing in picture, the aforesaid doctrine. It is submitted that in fact, the said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneration or distribution of electrical energy, cannot make any difference regarding the availability of exemption, so long as goods supplied were in reality used by Punjab State Electricity Board. It is submitted that therefore, the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case where exemption is not specific. Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that in other words, exemption notification does not say that it seeks to exempt goods sold by ONGC to OMCs like in the case referred to above. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case, exemption was in favour of an assessee with reference to goods sold by it to any undertaking supplying electricity energy to public i.e. entity like Punjab State Electricity Board and on the contrary ONGC claims exemption on the strength of 'ultimate use of Kerosene / LPG', which is not at all a relevant factor for interpreting Entries 33 and 70 of the Notification issued under the erstwhile Act, 1969 and Entries 53 and 69 of Notification issued under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. [8.9] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such not a single tractor trailer was used for purpose other than agricultural purpose. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid case, there was nothing like a common pool of tractor trailers out of which a part quantity was sold to agriculturists and part quantity was sold to nonagriculturists. It is submitted that in the present case, OMCs purchase Kerosene and LPG, both in bulk, from ONGC as well as other sources and at the end of OMCs, there is no segregation of Kerosene and LPG received from ONGC on the one hand and that received from other sources, on the other. It is submitted that merely because the Government of India takes a decision on notional basis that equal quantum of Kerosene and LPG in bulk sold by ONGC to OMCs may be ultimately utilized for Public Distribution System and domestic purpose, ONGC cannot claim the benefit of exemption from Sales Tax with reference to its sale of Kerosene and LPG, both in bulk, to OMCs on the basis of the aforesaid judgment. It is also humbly submitted that the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not appear to be correct from the point of view of the taxing event, which is the event of sale under the applicable S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.10.1999, but on and from 1.11.1999, the said drug can be sold only at a price specified in the order. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that what has been exempted is a drug which has been manufactured by a Company till midnight of 31.10.1999, for which sometime would be necessary to market the same and that therefore, pragmatic and practical view is required to be taken while keeping in mind the object and purport of the Control Order in question. It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgment was not in regard to taxing statute and that therefore the view adopted by the Apex Court cannot be made applicable to fact of the present case. [8.14] Now, so far as the reliance placed by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra), Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that in the said case State of Karnataka had provided exemption from sales tax in regard to sale of High Speed Diesel Oil to Fishermen. However, the State levied Cess to be recovered from the Fishermen, despite there being exemption from sales tax in respect of hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity Press was making profit out of its activities the same would not qualify for exemption supposedly on the ground that it is the part of Oxford University. [8.16] Now, so far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Ambalal Co. (Supra) relied upon by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC is concerned, Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 of its judgment in the above referred case cannot and should not be allowed to be treated as a ratio decidendi, more particularly when the facts obtaining in the said case are altogether different from the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case, the respondent ONGC was charged with an allegation of illegal importation of rough diamonds in the country and it was in that context that, Revenue contended that the benefit of Exemption Notification available to the importation of rough diamonds cannot be extended to a person who/which had illegally imported the same in the country, which amounts to smuggling of rough diamonds clandestinely without payment of duty. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any substance inasmuch as ONGC's intraState sale of LPG in bulk is in favour of OMCs and not for domestic use by the consumers of the State and hence, the same is not exempt from tax liability and consequently its inter-State sale of LPG is also not exempt and in view of the whole basis of the premise of the aforesaid ONGC's contention being fallacious, no question arises of considering the provisions of section 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the present matter. It is also submitted that in support of the aforesaid submission, ONGC's reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Bashir Oil Mills, is also totally misconceived and erroneous. It is submitted that in the said case, the Bombay High Court was dealing with the erstwhile provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which had provided that if goods (oil cake) in the said case are generally exempt (i.e. unconditionally or without any condition), its Inter-State sales of oil cakes would also be exempt from tax. It is submitted that in the instant case, firstly LPG was not generally exempt, since what was exempt was the sale of LPG 'for domestic use' and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a system distributing goods to the public . It is submitted that ONGC is engaged in distributing goods for public consumption and therefore, would form part of Public Distribution System. [9.2] Now, so far as the revenue's submission relying upon para 8 of the Order, 1993 that the kerosene supplied through Public Distribution System shall be made distinguishable from the kerosene to be imported, sold or distributed under the parallel marketing system by use of suitable measures to be adopted by the Government Oil Companies as and when necessary is concerned, it is submitted that it is the duty of the Government Oil Companies to make kerosene supplied under Public Distribution System distinguishable and the same is being followed. Making above submissions, it is vehemently submitted that while selling the kerosene to the OMCs, the ONGC is a part of Public Distribution System and therefore, entitled to the exemption from payment of sales tax as well as VAT Act. [9.3] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of Hansraj Gordhandas (Supra) on behalf of the State is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. (Supra) on behalf of the State, it is submitted by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC that in the very judgment while considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1992 Supp(1) SCC 21], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while interpreting the exemption clause, liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof, provided no violence is done to the language employed. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision it is further observed that absurd results of constructions should be avoided. [9.8] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills (Supra) on behalf of the State is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Venkatraman, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC that it is not the case on behalf of the ONGC to add or delete expressions, while interpreting the exemption notifications / respective exemption entries. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;sale price'. Considering the definition of 'sale price' contained in section 2(29) such transportation and processing charges received by the ONGC before the actual delivery thereof it has to be included in the 'sale price' as per section 2(29). We are supported by the aforesaid view by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of ONGC vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax in Sales Tax Reference No.3/1998. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding that processing and transportation charges not received by the respondent from Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) cannot be included as part of the sale price of the gas sold by the respondent to GAIL. Under the circumstances the substantial question of law No.1 is held in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent - assessee - ONGC. [10.2] At the outset it is required to be noted that in this group of Appeals another / other dispute is with respect to the exemption notifications issued under Section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 as well as the exemption notifications issued under section 5(2) of the VAT Act. The dispute is with respect to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany, (a) which is holding a Certificate of Eligibility for incentives under any of the incentive schemes announced by the State Government, or (b) in respect of transactions on which incentives in the form of sales tax exemption or deferment are availed of. That somewhere in the year 2003 the Act, 1969 came to be repealed and in place of Gujarat Act No.1 of 2005, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 came to be enacted. The relevant entries in respect of the exemption claimed under the VAT Act, 2003 are entry Nos.53 and 69 and with respect to the Central Sales Tax is entry No.55. Even Entry No.69 in respect of the sales of LPG can be divided into two parts 1) for the period between 11.06.2008 to 02.10.2008 and 2) for the period between 03.10.2008 onwards. The relevant entries i.e. Entry Nos.53, 55, 69 (both pre 02.10.2008 and post 03.10.2008 of the Schedule to the exemption notification issued under section 5(2) of the VAT Act, 2003 are as under: Entry Period, Notification Date Class of Sales or Purchases ___________________ Ref. to Schedule Entry Exemption whether whole or part of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ONGC that in respect of sale of kerosene by ONGC to various OMCs, ONGC is entitled to the exemption from payment of tax under the Act, 1969 till the Act, 1969 was in force, as per the Entry No.33 and as per Entry No.53 of the notification issued under the VAT Act, 2003. It is also the case on behalf of the ONGC on sale of LPG by ONGC to various OMCs and therefore, no tax exceeding the rate of 14% can be levied on the LPG sold by the ONGC in bulk to OMCs, as per Entry No.17 of the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969. It is also the case on behalf of the ONGC that even in respect of inter-State sales of LPG, effected by the ONGC from State of Gujarat to other States, the ONGC shall be entitled to claim the exemption from tax, as per the Entry No.69. Per contra, it is the case on behalf of the State that in respect of sale of kerosene by the ONGC to various OMCs and on sale of LPG in bulk by the ONGC to various OMCs, and even with respect to inter-State sale of LPG in bulk sold outside the State, the ONGC shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of tax either under the Act, 1969 or under the VAT Act, 2003, as the case may be. Thus, while consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d literally, if not possible then in that case liberal and even then if liberal interpretation is not possible then it must be interpreted purposively so as to grant the benefit of intended exemption to the ONGC. However, considering the relevant entries and the wordings used in the relevant entries more particularly Entry Nos.33, 70 and 173 of the Act, 1969 and VAT Act, 2003, as the case may be, and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, we are of the opinion that in the present case as the wordings used in the respective exemption entries are very clear the same are required to be interpreted literally and there is no scope for either liberal and/or purposive interpretation. Considering the various catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the principles while interpreting the entries in the taxing statute, we are of the opinion that in a case where the wordings used in the relevant entries failed for scrutiny while literal interpreting the same, the question may arise for liberal and/or purposive interpretation. In the present case as observed herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NGC shall be entitled to exemption from payment of whole of the tax sales tax under the Act, 1969, as per Entry No.33. Under the circumstances, the said substantial question of law is held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Exemption claimed under Entry No.53 under the VAT Act, 2003 in respect of sale of kerosene through public distribution system by the ONGC to various OMCs [12.3] Now, so far as next substantial question of law and the issue with respect to the exemption claimed by the ONGC in respect of the sale of kerosene by ONGC to various OMCs from payment of value added tax under the VAT Act, 2003 claimed as per entry No.53 is concerned, on considering the relevant entry No.53 of the Schedule to the exemption notification No.(GHN35) VAT2006S. 5(2)(a)TH, dated 31.3.2006 issued under section 5 (VAT Act, 2003) and reading and considering the said entry as it is, there is a vast difference in the wordings in the said Entry No.53 under the VAT Act, 2003 and the relevant entry No.33 under the Act, 1969. Entry No.53 provides that in respect of kerosene sold through the public distribution system there shall be exemption from payment of whole of the tax under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the ONGC, in that case, the wordings would have been kerosene sold for the public distribution system , as it was there in Entry No.33 of the Schedule to the exemption notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969. Under the circumstances, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the ONGC can be said to be part of the public distribution system in that case also, the sale of kerosene by ONGC to various OMCs cannot be said to be kerosene sold through the public distribution system . On true interpretation of the phrase through visavis the kerosene sold to the public at large under the public distribution system, if the kerosene is sold by fair price shop holder to the public at large subject to the scheme of the government, such sale of kerosene can be said to be the kerosene sold through the public distribution system. Merely because under different instructions by the Ministry of Petroleum and/or other Ministries and/or Department the ONGC and/or the OMCs are directed to allot a particular quota, it cannot be said that sale of kerosene by the ONGC to various OMCs can be said to be kerosene sold through public distribution system . As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of LPG (domestic) by the ONGC is concerned, the relevant entry under exemption notifications issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 is Entry No.70 and 173 which is reproduced hereinabove. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, while considering Entry No.33 in respect of the sale of LPG sold by ONGC to various OMCs sold in bulk for domestic use, the ONGC shall be entitled to the exemption from payment of Sales Tax under the Act, 1969 to the extent to which the amount of sales tax exceeds 14 ps. in a rupee. Therefore, on conjoint reading of Entry No.70 and 173, in case of sale of LPG in bulk by ONGC to various OMCs which can be said to be sale of LPG by one specified company (ONGC) to other specified company (as per the explanation to Entry No.173) in respect of sale of LPG in bulk for domestic use the ONGC shall be entitled to the exemption to the extent to which the amount of sales tax exceeds 14 ps. in a rupee. Therefore, the substantial question of law in respect of Entry Nos.70 and 173 of the Schedule to the exemption notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act, 1969 in respect of sales of LPG by ONGC to various OMCs to the extent of sale to any other specified comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amended Entry No.69 for post 03.10.2008 are sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State . Therefore, the sale of LPG in bulk by the ONGC to various OMCs cannot be said to be sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State. The various OMCs cannot be said to be the consumers of the State and therefore, the sale of LPG in bulk by ONGC to various OMCs cannot be said to be sale for domestic use by the consumers of the State. There is a distinction between sale of LPG for domestic use and sale of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State . The intention of the legislature while amending the Entry No.69 on and from 03.10.2008 seems to be to restrict the exemption and in respect of the sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State only. Earlier entry No.69 pre 02.10.2008 was a very wide entry and it provided that for sale of LPG for domestic use, an exemption was provided. However, by amendment in the Entry No.69, from 03.10.2008, the sales of LPG for domestic use by the consumers of the State, exemption is provided. Under the circumstances, the ONGC shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of tax under the VAT Act, 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in sub-section (5). As per sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, 1969, the penalty is leviable if it appears to the Commissioner, a dealer has concealed the particulars of any transaction or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of any transaction liable to tax. In the present case, it cannot be said that the ONGC has concealed the particulars of any transaction or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of any transaction liable to tax. Under the circumstances, there is no justification in levying the penalty under sub-section (2)(c) of section 45 of the Act, 1969. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the respondent ONGC is not liable to pay any penalty under sub-section (2)(c) of the Act, 1969 is held in favour of the assessee - ONGC and against the Revenue. [13.1] However, so far as penalty leviable of sub-section (6) of section 45 of the Act, 1969 is concerned, the penalty leviable under the said provision is as such a statutory penalty and as such there is no discretion vested in the Commissioner whether to levy the penalty leviable under sub-section (6) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
