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

2007 Supreme(Jhk) 834

Jharkhand High Court
M.Karpaga Vinayagam,J.
B.O.C.India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Decided On : 2 November, 2007

Headnote:Bihar Finance Act, 1981 – Section 13 (1) (b) – differential amount of sales tax – demand of – oxygen gas – unless it is established before the prescribed authority, which in turn will decide the nature of the goods, purchasing dealer can not claim payment of sales tax at concessional rate – petition dismissed. (Para – 10)

JUDGMENT

M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. B.O.C India Ltd., petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 2432 dated 25.7.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur, respondent No. 4, directing the petitioner company to deposit an amount of Rs 1,02,45,572/- being the differential amount of 1% sales tax on sale of Oxygen Gas to Tata Iron & Steel Company, respondent No. 7 herein.

2. The short facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

(A) The petitioner is the producer and supplier of gases like oxygen gas etc. for industrial and medical use. Tata Iron & Steel Company (TISCO), respondent No. 7 herein, is one of the major purchasers and consumers of the products of the petitioner, mainly oxygen gas. On 16.3.1983, M/s. TISCO, respondent No. 7, was granted certificate under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein it is mentioned that M/s. TISCO would be liable to pay sales tax @ 3% on the oxygen gas purchased by it. In the certificate granted to it under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, there are two lists of goods. Annexure - A contains the raw materials on which concessional rate of tax @ 1% was to be paid. Annexure - B contains list of various goods taxable @ 3%. Oxygen gas was mentioned as goods in Annexure - B. Hence sale of oxygen gas was taxable @ 3%. The certificate was issued for charging concessional rate of tax @ 3% on oxygen gas supplied to TISCO as per notification No. 1415 dated 15.12.1976. TISCO has been purchasing oxygen gas since 1983 by paying sales tax @ 3%.

(B) On 12.4.1982, the Government of Bihar notified through notification No. 604 that the sales tax on raw materials payable under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act contained in Annexure - A was fixed at 1%.

(C) At the time of issuance of certificate on 16.3.1983, raw materials were specifically mentioned in Annexure - A for which concessional rate @ 1% was to be charged. In the list of raw materials in Annexure - A, Oxygen Gas was not mentioned. Oxygen Gas is mentioned as goods in Annexure - B taxable at the concessional rate of 3% as per notification dated 15.12.1976. Thereupon the notification in S.O. No. 1096 dated 9.9.1983 was issued fixing the rate of 2% for raw materials required for manufacture and processing of the goods for sale. This is affirmed by yet another notification with modification in subsequent notification through S.O. No. 1054 dated 3.2.1986.

(D) Though the petitioner had collected sales tax @ 3% from the beginning for sale of oxygen gas to TISCO, respondent No. 7 herein, as per the certificate, on coming to know the contents of the relevant notifications dated 9.9.1983 and 3.2.1986, the petitioner felt that the liability to pay sales tax on the goods being raw material sold to TISCO would be @ 2% only and not 3%. Therefore, the petitioner sold the good to TISCO at the rate of tax at 2%, in view of the aforesaid two notifications. Since sales tax @ 3% was not collected and paid, road permits were not issued to the petitioner, Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court in W.P.(T) No. 1195/2004, which was disposed of by the High Court directing the respondents to issue road permits. In the meantime, respondent No. 7 also filed writ petition seeking for exemption from payment of sales tax @ 3% and also sought for direction to pay sales tax at the consessional rate of 2% under Jharkhand Industrial Policy. However, the favourable orders were not obtained from the High Court and so the respondent No. 7 moved the Honble Supreme Court. The petitioner also went to Supreme Court and filed necessary application seeking for the said relief. However, both the matters were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter on 20.4.2005 and 29.6.2005, the Department issued notices to the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 1,02,45,572/-, being the differential amou
















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top