9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgments and orders dated 05.09.2013 and 28.09.2012 allowing the second appeal filed by the Assessee. The Revision No.92 of 2014, Revision No.152 of 2014 and Revision No.149 of 2014 were admitted on the following question of law:- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting exemption on the sale of goods by the Canteen Stores Department to different Canteen Store Department situate outside the State treating the transaction covered under section 8(2A) of Central Sales Tax Act whereas exemption under State Law is conditional and there is no notification." 3. While the Revision No.301 of 2013 and Revision No.303 of 2013 were admitted on the following question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied with the order of the first appellate authority, Second Appeal Nos.328 of 2004, 294 of 2005 and 356 of 2006 for assessment years 2001- 02 (Central), 2002-03 (Central), 2003-04 (Central) and Second Appeal No.182 of 2009 for assessment year 2000-01 (under Section 21(2)) and Second Appeal No.258 of 2009 for assessment year 2001-02 (under Section 21(2)) were filed. The Tribunal by the two judgments dated 28.09.2012 and 05.09.2013 allowed the appeals of the Assessee and held the sale made by the CSD to the canteens stores to be exempted from Central Sales Tax in view of Section 8(2A)/8(2C) (by Amendment dated 11.05.2002 in the CST, Section 8 (2C) was substituted in place of Section 8 (2A)), hence the present revisions. 8. Sri A.C. Tripathi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal upon the judgment of M/s Dabur India Limited (supra) and the circular issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. dated 23rd July, 1987 cannot be relied upon. 10. Sri Rakesh Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee is Canteen Stores Department which runs under the Defence Ministry, and it supplies goods to the various canteens stores in the western region of the State as well as to Uttrakhand. According to him, the sale made to the canteens at Uttarakhand is exempted under Section 8(2A) of the CST. He placed reliance upon the Circular of the Commissioner Trade Tax dated 23.07.1987 and also on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in case of M/s Dabur India Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the Circular dated 23rd July, 1987. The Co-ordinate Bench had considered the Notification dated 31.01.1985, but found that as the Circular of the Commissioner Trade Tax dated 23rd July, 1987 was binding upon the department in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, A.P. Vs. M/s Indra Industries 2000 U.P.T.C. 472, and also on the decision of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1999 (7) SCC 84, the department cannot deny the benefit. 16. Argument from the State side to the extent that Notification dated 31st January, 1985 was conditional and the same has not been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench in M/ s Dabur India Limited (supra), the benefit passed upon by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment/ Military Canteens. 18. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, on 23.07.1987, issued a circular re-conciling the two earlier notifications, and on the basis of the directions of the State Government, directed that sales made to Khadi Gramodyog Board/ Military Canteens/ Canteen Stores Department and U.P. Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam, Chetna are exempted from tax, and they are to be treated as exempted within the meaning of Section 8 (2A) of the CST. Thus, any sale made to institutions will be exempted from tax. 19. The Circular dated 23rd July, 1987 has to be read in harmony with the Notification dated 31.01.1985, as the Notification of 1985 also provided exemptions of tax subject to certain conditions. Due to contradictions existing betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. The Apex Court in Paper Products Ltd. (supra) and M/s Indra Industries (supra) has already clarified that circulars by Taxing Authorities are not binding on the Assessee, but the department could not take plea that they are not binding upon the department. 24. The issue raised by the department stands settled in the light of the judgment in M/s Dabur India Limited (supra). The only clarification, which is made, is that the Circular dated 23.07.1987 is, in fact, clarificatory in nature re-conciling the earlier notifications and has only put the controversy at rest, regarding the exemption to be granted under Section 8(2A) of the CST. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the judgment and order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
