IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P. Sam Koshy, J.
M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited, a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, through its Authorized Signatory of the Company Shri Anil Purohit, S/o. Shri Suraj Prakash Purohit - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (T.) No. 128 Of 2015
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Section 49(1), 2(s)(vi) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 366, (29A), (d) - Lease Charges - Levy of Value Added Tax - Challenge in present petition is to Order whereby Revisional Authority has affirmed Order – Held, High Court of Orrisa in “M/s Shrei International Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.” in somewhat identical set of facts has held that since sale or purchase was in course inter-state trade and commerce, State has no jurisdiction to levy tax on lease rent received - Taxable event is transfer of right to use goods and not right to use goods or use of goods - Therefore, right to use goods or use of goods is not relevant factor to justify levy of tax - Court is of opinion that Orders of assessment so made by Assessing Authority and rejection of Revision by Revisional Authority both being in contravention to provisions of law and also contrary to Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, same thus would not be sustainable and therefore both Orders deserve to be set-aside/quashed - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 30.5.2015 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Revisional Authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur in Revision Case No.29/R/2015- Regional under Section 49(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the VAT Act”) has affirmed the Order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed in Case No.104/2010-Regional by the Assessing Officer i.e. the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division-I, Raipur.
2. The issue involved in the instant case is the levy of Value Added Tax (for short, “VAT”) on the lease charges paid by the Railways Department to the Petitioner Company. The levy of tax was under Section 2(s)(vi) of the VAT Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessment for the year 2009-10 was completed on 22.12.2014. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of Rs.29,20,347/- as lease rent obtained by the Assessee from the Railways Department. Treating the said receipt of lease rent by the Petitioner Company from the Railways Department as deemed sale, tax was assessed on the above mentioned amount at the rate of 18% which came to around Rs.4,08,849/-.
3. This Court on an earlier occasion had dismissed the present Writ Petition vide Order dated 5.12.2017. However, subsequently, the Writ Petition was reviewed and vide Order dated 4.11.2022, the Review Petition was allowed by this Court and the matter has again come for hearing and is now being decided on merits by this Order.
4. Crux of the matter in brief is that the Indian Railways had floated a Scheme known as “Own Your Wagon Scheme” to which the Petitioner Company expressed their interest in purchasing Wagons and for which necessary proposal was put forth by them. The proposal was approved by the Railways Board. In respect of the said approval of the proposal put forth by the Petitioner Company, two Contracts under the “Own Your Wagon Scheme” were entered into between the President of India through the Chief Marketing and Sales Manager, South Eastern Railways and the Petitioner Company as it then was known as “M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited”.
5. The said Contracts were signed in Kolkata in the year 1996. As per the Contracts, the Wagons proposed to be purchased by the Petitioner Company were to be manufactured by two different Companies approved by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, namely – M/s Texmaco Limited, Kolkata (West Bengal) and M/s CIMMCO Birla Limited, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). As per the Contract/Agreement, the Wagons manufactured for and on behalf of the Petitioner Company were directly/straightaway handed over to the Railway Authorities from where they were manufactured. M/s CIMMCO Birla Limited handed over their manufactured Wagons to the Station Superintendent, Bharatpur Railway Station (Western Railways). As regards the Wagons manufactured at M/s Texmaco Limited, the same were handed over to the Station Master, Belgharia Railway Station (West Bengal) under the then South Eastern Railways.
6. After the Wagons were manufactured and handed over to the Indian Railways at Bharapur (Rajasthan) and Belgharia (West Bengal), the Petitioner Company started getting lease rent from the Railways. It is the tax i.e. VAT on the said lease rent for the assessment year 2009-10 for which the lease rent on Rs.29,20,347/- at the rate of 18% which came to Rs.4,08,849/- which was assessed by the Assessing Officer treating it to be the lease rent obtained for transfer of right to use under Section 2(s)(vi) of the VAT Act.
7. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the said assessment of tax by the State Authorities is per se bad, for the reason that firstly the Agreement was executed at a place outside the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh, secondly, the Wagons purchased by the Petitioner Company also were not delivered or stationed within the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, it was the contention of learned Counsel
20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
SupremeToday
The lease of a factory as a whole, including both movable and immovable properties, is not subject to sales tax under Section 3A of the TNGST Act.
The petitioner's appeal against the Assessment Order under sec. 23(4) of the MVAT Act was dismissed by the Court on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy and the presence of disput....
The court established that a transaction must involve effective control for it to be classified as a transfer of right to use goods, impacting tax liability.
Leasing hoardings is classified as a transfer of right to use goods, making it subject to VAT under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act.
The transactions of leasing infrastructure equipment constitute services, not deemed sales, as effective control remains with the provider rather than transferring rights to the user.
Transactions involving site analyser machines are deemed sales, not taxable as supply of tangible goods for use due to the transfer of possession and effective control to the clients, exempting them ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.