1993 (4) TMI 289 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of Section 8(2-A) and Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Inclusion of additional sales tax and surcharge under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, and Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, in the rate of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Validity of show cause notices and reassessment orders issued by the assessing authorities.
4. Estoppel due to earlier circulars and instructions by tax authorities.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 8(2-A) and Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

The court examined the scope of Section 8(2-A) and Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in relation to the additional sales tax and surcharge levied under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, and Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971. The petitioners contended that these levies should not be included in the rate of tax under the Central Act. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 106, which held that additional sales tax and surcharge are part of the sales tax law and should be included in the rate of tax under the Central Act.

Issue 2: Inclusion of Additional Sales Tax and Surcharge

The court held that additional sales tax and surcharge levied under the Tamil Nadu Acts are indeed taxes on the turnover relating to the sale of goods. The fact that these levies are imposed by separate enactments does not alter their character as sales tax. The court emphasized that the definition of "sales tax law" under Section 2(i) of the Central Act includes any law providing for the levy of sales tax, thus encompassing additional sales tax and surcharge.

Issue 3: Validity of Show Cause Notices and Reassessment Orders

The court addressed the petitioners' challenge to the show cause notices and reassessment orders issued by the assessing authorities. It was contended that these actions were contrary to earlier circulars and instructions. However, the court ruled that administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The court also provided specific directions for the petitioners to file their objections and pursue statutory remedies.

Issue 4: Estoppel Due to Earlier Circulars and Instructions

The petitioners argued that the tax authorities were estopped from levying additional sales tax and surcharge due to earlier circulars and instructions stating otherwise. The court rejected this argument, stating that there can be no estoppel against the statute, and administrative instructions cannot prevent the government from acting in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, except for W.P. No. 7131 of 1991, which was partly allowed with directions for fresh assessment. The court upheld the inclusion of additional sales tax and surcharge in the rate of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and provided directions for the petitioners to file objections and pursue statutory remedies.