SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy JJ.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.- Appellants
Versus
Corporation Bank - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2002
Decided on : 29.03.2007
Advocates appeared
Ms. June G. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajnish Kr. Singh and Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash and Mr. S.N. Bhat, Advocates with him for the Respondents.

The court clarified the prospective application of the Amending Act NO.27 of 1996 and the interpretation of Explanation IV to Section 2(1)(e) of the 1957 Act.

Headnote:

business - sales tax - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Section 2(1)(e) - Explanation IV

Fact of the Case:

The State issued a demand notice to a bank for payment of tax on the auction sale of jewelry held against a loan. The bank challenged the notice, contending that the provisions of the 1957 Act are not applicable to banking transactions. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices, and the State appealed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Amending Act NO.27 of 1996, which expanded the definition of 'dealer' to cover banks, LICs, and financial institutions, did not operate retrospectively to cover the auction sale held prior to its enactment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Amending Act NO.27 of 1996 applied retrospectively to the auction sale held on 19.8.87.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Explanation IV to Section 2(1)(e) of the 1957 Act and held that it was not intended to operate retrospectively, as it sought to expand the definition of 'dealer' to include banks, financial institutions, LICs, etc.

Final Decision: The civil appeal filed by the State was disposed of with no order as to costs, clarifying that Explanation IV would apply to transactions on and after 1.8.1996.

JUDGMENT

KAPADIA, J.

1. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the State (appellants) is : whether pledging of ornaments with the Bank against a loan and sale of such goods if the loan is not discharged, would be "business" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with Explanation IV thereto.

2. On 3.4.89 the Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal, issued demand notice on respondent-Bank for payment of tax on turnover of auction sale of jewellery held on 19.8.87 under Section 5 read with Explanation IV of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the 1957 Act", for short). In this connection reliance was placed on Section 2(1)(e) read with Explanation IV of the 1957 Act.

3. Aggrieved by the demand notice, the respondent-Bank filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the legality of the notice. In the writ petition the respondent Bank contended that the provisions of the 1957 Act are not applicable to banking transactions.

4. By judgment dated 8.6.01 the Division Bench allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned notices holding that Banks are not amenable to sales tax on sale of gold pledged with the Banks as security for loan. Hence this civil appeal by the State (appellants).

5. At the outset we may point out that in the civil appeal filed by the State (appellants), the entire emphasis is placed on Explanation IV to Section 2(1)(e) of the 1957 Act which was inserted by Act NO.27 of 1996 by which the definition of the word "dealer" was expanded to cover banks, L.I.Cs. and financial institutions. Therefore, the question which we have to answer in this civil appeal is: whether Explanation IV of the 1957 Act would operate retrospectively, particularly, since in the present case the notice given to the Bank pertains to the auction sale of ornaments held on 19.8.87.

6. Act NO.27 of 1996 was an Amending Act. It received the assent of the Governor on 15.10.96. It was published on 17.10.96 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. It was preceded by an Ordinance. The said Amending Act operated with effect from 1.8.96. It is so specifically stated in the said Act NO.27 of 1996.

7. For deciding the above controversy we quote herein below the amended Section 2(1)(e) read with Explanation IV of the 1957 Act:

"Section 2.-Definitions:- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-

(e) "dealer" means any person who carries on the business of buying selling, supplying or distributing goods or delivering goods on hire purchase or on any system of payment by installments, or carries on or executes any works contract involving supply or use of material directly or otherwise, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes-

(i) local authority, a company, a Hindu undivided family or any society (including a co-operative society), club, firm or association which carries on such business;

(ii) a society (including a co-operative society), club firm or association which buys goods from or sells, supplied or distributes goods to its members;

(iii) a casual traders, as hereinbefore defined;

(iii-a) any person, who may, in the course of business of running a restaurant or an eating house or a hotel (by whatever name called), supply by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating);

(iii-b) any person, who may transfer the right to the use of any goods for any purpose whatsoever (whether or not for a specified period) in the course of business to any other person;

(iv) a commission agent, a broker, a del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any principal or principals;

Explanation 1:- Every person who acts as an agent of a non-resid






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top