Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s ITC Limited Versus State of U.P. & Others

2016 (8) TMI 923 - SUPREME COURT

Validity of the judgement dated 16.01.2007 - Trade Tax, Saharanpur under Rule 41(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules – imposition of purchase tax along with interest - benefit of exemption Notification dated 29.08.2003 issued under Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Section 3D(1) of the Act – purchase of wheat – supply to flour mills for grinding process – Held that: - in order to avail the benefit of the Notification and evade payment of purchase tax, a particular supplier .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

get the benefit of the special relief provided under Section 4B of the Act. Therefore, Notification dated 29.08.2003 should have been read as it is and on that basis the High Court was supposed to examine as to whether the appellant satisfied the conditions of Section 4B of the Act read with the aforesaid Notification dated 29.08.2003 or not. The benefit is extended to a dealer and for availing this benefit it is not necessary that he has to be a manufacturer. Here, the appellant satisfies all t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibhu Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Malik, Adv. Mr. Vinay Garg, Adv. ORDER These appeals are preferred by the appellant/assessee questioning the validity and/or propriety of the judgment dated 16.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellant have been dismissed. The said writ petitions were filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Saharanpur under Rule 41(6) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner, Trade Tax and the High Court has, as mentioned above, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant. Few relevant facts which need to be noticed to decide the controversy are as follows: The appellant herein is the first purchaser of wheat from the farmers in the State of U.P. It supplies the wheat so purchased to certain Roller Flour Mills in the State of U.P. for conversion of the same to Atta and Maida. The period wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th Notification dated 29.08.2003, both of which provide for such exemption in respect of goods that are sold or supplied by the first purchaser of the goods to such Roller Flour Mills. However, vide order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, this exemption was denied on the basis that the same was not available in case of supply of the wheat by the appellant to the Roller Flour Mills. Two show cause notices were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax and after considering re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibes the levy of trade tax on purchaser or sale of certain goods. These goods, admittedly, include wheat. Notwithstanding this provision contained in Section 3D of the Act, Section 4B(1)(a-1)contains a special provision providing special relief to such assessees. The heading of the section is special relief to certain manufacturers . Since the appellant is claiming the benefit of the special relief that is provided under the aforesaid provision, we would like to reproduce sub-Section(1)of Sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sub-section(2) in respect thereof, he shall be liable in respect of those goods to tax at such concessional rate, or be wholly or partly exempt from tax, whether unconditionally or subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in that behalf, as may be notified in the Gazette by the State Government in that behalf: (a-1) Where any declared goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-D are sold or supplied by a dealer, who is the first purchaser thereof, to another dealer, hold .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-section (1) of Section 3-D are sold or supplied by a dealer, who is the first purchaser thereof, to another dealer and the said dealer holds a valid recognition certificate under sub-section(2) thereof, the State Government may, by a notification, grant the same relief as mentioned in clause(a) to such first purchaser. The conditions that are required to be satisfied for claiming the benefit under these provisions are: (1) the declared goods should otherwise be liable to tax under Section 3D(1) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r who is the first purchaser of wheat within the State when such wheat is sold or supplied by such first purchaser to a Roller Flour Mill and Atta Chakki Plant holding a valid recognition certificate under sub-Section (2) of Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Act and such manufactured goods shall be notified goods for the purposes of the said section. It is clear from the above that this Notification which was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4B(1)(a-1) prescribed that no tax shall be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efit of composition of tax liability under Section 7D during the relevant period; 3. The first purchaser of wheat within the State furnishes a declaration in Form 3B as provided under the Act, obtained from the purchasing Roller Flour Mill and Atta Chakki Plant alongwith following endorsement on the back from such Roller Flour Mill and Atta Chakki Plant. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein had supplied the goods to three flour mills which are other dealers. It is also not in dispute t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns on the spacious ground that the Notification dated 29.08.2003 though uses the expression sold or supplied , the words or supplied are redundant because they are mechanically borrowed from the wording of Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Act. We fail to understand the aforesaid reason given by the High Court in arriving at the conclusion that the words or supplied should not have been in the first part of the Notification. The High Court ignored the fact that this Notification was, in fact, issued by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case where the goods are sold but also supplied by a dealer. Excluding the goods which are supplied by a dealer, in fact, would be doing violence to the provisions of Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Act. The Notification dated 29.08.2003 was, thus, rightly issued by the State Government giving the benefit to those goods which are supplied as well. It was not proper on the part of the High Court to tinker with the language of the Notification and exclude the benefit which is given to the dealer who su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

chaser and who will claim exemption under the said Notification and will supply wheat to flour mill beyond its assessed grinding capacity and the excess quantity of wheat which the flour mill will receive is only by way of supply and not by way of purchase. As mentioned above, this is not only a hypothetical situation, but even the illustration as given is not a correct illustration. If a dealer sets up any middle man or an agent who purchases the goods,then such middle man or agent becomes the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tions. At this stage, we would like to deal with the arguments which were advanced before us by the learned counsel for the State Government. In the first instance, it was submitted that Section 3D of the Act, which is a charging section, should be read along with Section 4B of the Act and it is Section 3D which governs Section 4B of the Act. This argument is totally misconceived and needs to be out-rightly rejected inasmuch as Section 4B of the Act, which starts with a non-obstante clause, clea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rginal note of the said section. We are afraid, even this argument is without any substance. No doubt, marginal note states that the special relief is to certain manufacturers . However, in the body of the section and particularly, sub-section(1), manufacturer is not mentioned at all and as can be noticed from our discussion above, the benefit is extended to the dealer who is the first purchaser of the goods and sells or supplies the same to another dealer who holds a valid recognition certifica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version