Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
M/s. CASIO India Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1410, 1411 of 2007 & 5450 of 2013
Decided on : 29-03-2016
(b) Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 – Rule 28A r/w Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995 – Objective and purpose – To exempt goods manufactured in the State on further transfer in inter-state or intra-state trade or commerce – Therefore it refers to industries eligible and entitled to exemption, and goods manufactured by such industries – Notification emphasises on goods manufactured within exemption period and by a dealer holding an exemption certificate. (Para 18)
(c) Interpretation of statute – Proviso – Normal function of Proviso – To qualify something enacted therein which but for the said proviso would fall within the purview of the enactment – In nature of exception – Except for instances specified in the proviso, it should not be used for interpreting the main provision/enactment, so as to exclude something by implication – Proviso should not normally be construed as nullifying the enactment or as taking away completely a right conferred. (Para 19)
AIR 1966 SC 12; AIR 1961 SC 1596; AIR 1959 SC 713 – Relied upon
(d) Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 – Rule 28A r/w Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995 – Proviso to Notification stating the manufacturer-dealer should not have charged tax – means and implies that manufacturing dealer should not have charged the tax – It cannot mean that the first transaction by the eligible manufacturing dealer by way of inter-state sale would be exempt but not the inter-state sale is made by trader/purchaser. (Para 20)
(e) Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 – Rule 28A(4)(c) – Exempting all intra-state sales including subsequent sales – Eligible product can be sold a number of times, without payment of tax. (Para 21)
(1975) 35 STC 1; (1992) 85 STC 432; (1992) 85 STC 432; (1996) 101 STC 547; (1999) 114 STC 365; (1996) 101 STC 1; (2008) 4 SCC 720; (2011) 10 SCC 292; (2011) 6 SCC 545; (2005) 9 SCC 669; (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 606 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellant-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Radio Pagers having its unit at plot No. 4, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana. In the year 1995-96, the assessee-company after purchase of Radio Pagers from M/s Bharati Telecom Limited was also engaged in inter-state sale of the said Radio Pagers and in course of the said transaction, did not charge any sales tax from the purchasers on the basis of Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995. The appellant filed its return and claimed exemption placing reliance on the said notification, but the claim of exemption put forth by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Rohtak Circle, Rohtak who dismissed it.
The Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
The High Court called for a reference from the tribunal which was complied with.
The High Court held that the notification did not exempt the goods sold in the course of inter-state trade by dealer other than those who held valid exemption certificate granted under Rule 28A of the Rules.
The High Court answered the reference in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Finding of the Court:
Rule 28A exempts all intra-state sales including subsequent sales. Eligible product can be sold a number of times, without payment of tax.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, J.
Regard being had to the similitude of the issue in all the appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. As the principal principle that constitutes the bedrock of the decision in the subject matter of assail in Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2007, we shall advert to the facts exposited therein and also dwell upon the legal issue and, needless to say, that would govern the fate of all the appeals.
2. Presently to the layout of facts in Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2007. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Radio Pagers having its unit at plot No. 4, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is registered under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”), Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, “CST Act”) In the year 1995-96, the assessee-company after purchase of Radio Pagers from M/s Bharati Telecom Limited was also engaged in inter-state sale of the said Radio Pagers and in course of the said transaction, did not charge any sales tax from the purchasers on the basis of Notification No. SO 89/CA.74/56/S.8/95 dated 04.09.1995 issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act read with Rule 28A(4)(c) of the Rules. The appellant filed its return and claimed exemption placing reliance on the said notification, but the claim of exemption put forth by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer vide assessment order dated October 05, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Rohtak Circle, Rohtak who dismissed the appeal vide order dated May 2, 2002.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed in appeal, the appellant knocked at the doors of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the tribunal’) which dismissed the appeal by its order dated September 9, 2002. The dismissal of the appeal by the tribunal compelled the appellant to prefer Writ Petition No. 2346 of 2003, seeking a direction to the tribunal to make a reference to the High Court. The High Court accepting the prayer of the assessee called for a reference from the tribunal, and the tribunal vide its order dated 14.10.2003 in S.T.M. No. 82 of 2002-03 made a reference to the High Court for its opinion.
4. After stating the case, the tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of the High Court:-
“(i) Whether the notification dated 04.09.1995 issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act is relatable to the exemption of goods or the person selling it?
(ii) Whether in view of the notification dated 04.09.1995 issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act and Rule 28A of the Rules, the inter-state sales of the goods manufactured by an “exempted unit”, even by any other dealer, is exempted from the levy of the Central Sales Act?”
5. Before the High Court it was contended by the assessee that the notification dated 04.09.1995 issued by the State Government provides for grant of exemption on the sale of goods manufactured in the State of Haryana by any dealer holding valid exemption certificate under Rule 28 of the Rules and not to the dealer and, therefore, the goods sold by the assessee in the course of inter-state trade were not liable to be taxed. In support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli, (1975) 35 STC 1 Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Assessing Authority and others, (1992) 85 STC 432 Khadi and Village Soap Industries Association and another v. State of Haryana and others, (1992) 85 STC 432 State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products, (1996) 101 STC 547 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises, (1999) 114 STC 365.
6. On behalf of the revenue, it was urged that the notification in question provided for grant of exemption only on the sale of goods manufactured in the St
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
