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

2016 Supreme(SC) 1444

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1467 Of 2006 with Civil Appeal No.1468 of 2006
Decided On : 14-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev. Kr. Singh, Shahid H. Rizvi, K. Ajit Singh, N.A. Usmani and Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Kamlendra Mishra, Aarohi Bhalla, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad and Kunal Verma, Advocates.

Ex-post facto approval amounts to sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

Sugarcane Purchase Tax - Storage of Sugar - U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, Section 3-A, Proviso - The court discussed the provisions of Section 3-A and its proviso, which mandate Sugar Mills not to remove sugar produced in the factory without paying the tax. The proviso allows storage of sugar in approved spaces outside the factory premises, with the condition that the tax is paid before removal. The court referred to the case law to establish that ex-post facto approval amounts to sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Sugar Mill, stored sugar in a rented Godown outside the factory premises due to space constraints. The Assessing Authority granted ex-post facto approval for the storage but later imposed a penalty for not taking prior approval. The appellant contended that ex-post facto approval was sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no tax evasion, as the appellant had paid the tax at the time of removal of the sugar bags. The court referred to case law to establish that ex-post facto approval was sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether ex-post facto approval amounted to sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ex-post facto approval was sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the Act, based on the interpretation of the word 'approval' and the distinction between approval and permission as established in case law.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the penalty, and made no order as to costs.

ORDER :

The appellant herein is a Sugar Mill which procures sugarcane for the purpose of manufacture of sugar. On the purchase of sugarcane, the tax is payable by such Sugar Mills under the provisions of U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961. In order to ensure that this tax is paid faithfully on the purchase of sugarcane, Section 3-A in the said Act mandates the Sugar Mills not to remove any sugar produced in the factory either for consumption or for sale or manufacture of any other commodity in or outside the factory, unless the owner has paid towards the tax levied under Section 3 of the said Act. Proviso to this Section 3-A, however, gives little indulgence to the owners of these factories and provide that sugar may be deposited in any godown or other space for storage approved by the Assessing Authority without payment of any sum. However, as per this proviso also such sugar which is allowed to be deposited in a Godown or other space for storage is not to be removed therefrom until the tax is paid as per the provision of Section 3 of the Act. The combined reading of the aforesaid provisions along with proviso will indicate that normally factory owner is supposed to keep the sugarcane inside the factory premises and is not allowed to take it out unless the tax as levied under Section 3 is paid. However, under certain circumstances, the factory owner can store such sugar outside the factory i.e. in some Godown or other space for storage approved by the Assessing Authority. The main purpose for such provision is to allow sugarcane owner to store the sugar outside the factory premises when there is no space available in factory premises. At the same time, proviso ensures that the sugar is not to be removed even from such godown or space for storage unless the tax is paid. In the present case, the appellant had faced the problem of storing sugar in the factory premises in the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 and had stored the sugar in some Godown outside the factory premises. When this was pointed out to the appellant by the Inspector by making entry in this behalf on the inspection, the appellant made an application dated 28.03.1997 to the Tax Assessment Officer/Collector for giving approval for storage of sugar in rented Godown outside the factory. It was followed by another application dated 05.04.1997. The appellant also furnished, vide its application dated 10.05.1997, the details of the sugar which was stored in the aforesaid Godown outside the factory premises. It was emphasised that whenever sugar bags were removed from the said Godown, tax which is payable under Section 3 of the Act was deposited. After verifying the aforesaid bags and the stand of the appellant that it had paid the tax before removal of the sugar from the godown where the same was stored, the Assessing Authority, who was at the material time Collector, granted above order dated 07.06.1997 giving tax ex-post facto approval. In the said order the Assessing Authority also warned the appellant to take such permission in time, in future.

2. It appears that the tax assessment, was thereafter assigned to the District Magistrate. After few days of the passing of the aforesaid order, after taking over the said assignment, the District Magistrate and tax Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 21.06.1997 calling upon the appellant to show cause within one week as to why penalty should not be imposed for not taking prior approval for depositing the sugar bags in the rented Godown situated outside the factory premises. It may be mentioned at this stage that as per sub-section (5) of Section 3 A of the Act if the quantity of sugar is removed in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 3 A, there can be a penalty not exceeding 100 per cent of the sum, so paid as tax. The aforesaid show cause notice was, purportedly issued under the aforesaid provisions. The appellant contested the aforesaid notice by submitting that it had been granted approval ex-post facto and pl















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