High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J.S. Verma and K.K. Adhikari, JJ.
Maihar Cement
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
Miscellaneous Petition 69 of 1982 Of
Decided On : Sep 12,1985
entry tax - challenge to imposition of entry tax under the M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 - Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act - Section 2 (bb) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the imposition of entry tax on the purchase of iron and steel for construction of its buildings, arguing that the purchase was not in the course of its business of manufacturing cement as its cement production commenced later.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not liable to pay entry tax on the purchase of iron and steel prior to the commencement of its cement manufacturing business, and quashed the orders of assessment imposing the tax.
Issues: The key issue was whether the purchase of iron and steel for construction prior to the commencement of cement manufacturing business constituted a taxable event under the Entry Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on earlier Division Bench decisions, interpreting the definition of 'business' in the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, and held that the purchase of building material for construction before the commencement of the business cannot be considered 'in the course of business' for the purpose of entry tax.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the orders of assessment imposing entry tax were quashed.
( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges imposition of the tax, known as "entry tax" under the M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereafter referred as the "entry Tax Act") for the calendar years 1977 and 1978, on the purchase of iron and steel required by the petitioner for construction of its buildings. The short question for decision in this petition is whether the purchase of iron and steel by the petitioner during this period for this purpose was in the course of its business of manufacturing cement, when the petitioners factory commenced production of cement only from November, 1980. By orders (annexures C and D) dated 28th December, 1981 pertaining to the two calendar years 1977 and 1978, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Satna (M. P.), has held that the petitioner is liable to pay entry tax on this material to the extent specified therein. It is the quashing of these two orders of assessment, which is sought in this petition.
( 2. ) IT is not disputed that the business of the petitioner is manufacture of cement in its factory at Maihar and the manufacture of cement therein commenced from November, 1980 and that the purchase of iron and steel during the calendar years 1977 and 1978, on which entry tax has been imposed by the impugned orders of assessment, was for the purpose of construction of buildings of the petitioner prior to the commencement of its business of manufacturing cement. As earlier stated, the question is whether entry tax could be imposed on the purchase of iron and steel for use in construction of the petitioners buildings prior to the commencement of its business of manufacture of cement.
( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner places reliance on two Division Bench decisions of this Court, reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. , Ujjain [1982] 49 STC 22 ; (1981) 14 VKN 274 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Satna Cement Works (1984) 17 VKN 260, in which it was held that in these circumstances, no entry tax could be recovered on the building material purchased by the assessee. The learned Deputy Advocate-General has attempted to distinguish these decisions on the ground that the definition of "business" contained in Section 2 (bb) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 retrospectively with effect from 15th April, 1965 has not been noticed in these two decisions. There is no dispute that unless there is such a distinction present, in view of the earlier Division Bench decisions, the petitioners contention has to be accepted.
( 4. ) REFERENCE may now be made to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act lays down the incidence of taxation. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) therein provides for levy of entry tax on the entry "in the course of business of a dealer" of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2 (2) of the Entry Tax Act provides that all those expressions which are used but are not defined in this Act and are defined in the Sales Tax Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act. The expression "business" is not defined in the Entry Tax Act and, therefore, for the purpose of construing the same as used in Section 3 of the Act, reference has to be made to the definition of the expression "business" given in Section 2 (bb) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. This is the significance of the definition of "business" contained in Section 2 (bb) of the Sales Tax Act, since the real question for decision in the present case is whether entry of iron and steel brought within the local area by the petitioner for construction of its buildings was "in the course of business". Section 2 (bb) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as it exists after the amendment made by M. P. Act No. 19 of 1979 retrospectively with effect from 15th April, 1965 is as under :
2. (bb) business includes- (i) any tra
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.