Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (5) TMI 912 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the vires of Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Objections to the phrase "in the State" in Section 2(11).
3. Individual grievances regarding classification and taxation of capital goods.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the vires of Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006:

The petitioners sought a declaration that the phrase "in the State" in Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is ultra vires the Constitution. They also sought to quash the Orders of Assessment or Orders of recovery of a higher rate of tax. The court examined the grounds for challenging the vires of a legislation, noting that a law can be challenged for contravention of fundamental rights, legislating on a subject not assigned to the relevant legislature, contravention of mandatory constitutional provisions, operation beyond state boundaries, or excessive delegation of legislative function.

The court found that the petitioners' challenge, based on logic and common sense, was insufficient. The law validly enacted by a State Legislature cannot be challenged on these grounds. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Namit Sharma v. Union of India, which outlined the grounds on which a law can be invalidated and found that the petitioners' arguments did not meet these criteria.

2. Objections to the phrase "in the State" in Section 2(11):

The petitioners argued that the phrase "in the State" in Section 2(11) was unconstitutional for several reasons:
(i) Goods treated as capital goods within the State cannot become other goods outside the State.
(ii) Treating dealers differently based on the place of use offends Article 14.
(iii) The prescription in Section 2(11) encroaches on a field occupied by Central Legislation.
(iv) The prescription violates Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution.
(v) The prescription violates Article 303 of the Constitution.

The court rejected these objections, stating that the State Legislature is entitled to define "capital goods" and treat them differently based on their use within the State. The court emphasized that no words or expressions in a statute can be considered redundant or superfluous, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs.

3. Individual grievances regarding classification and taxation of capital goods:

The petitioners also raised individual grievances, which were categorized into two groups:
(i) Those whose products are not treated as capital goods despite being used in the manufacture of other products.
(ii) Those who sell goods to Government entities of other States, which do not hold a registration as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

For the first category, the court clarified that Section 2(11) should not be read in isolation and that goods used for producing, making, altering, assembling, or processing other goods would be considered capital goods if they meet the definition in Section 2(27). The court directed assessing authorities to apply this understanding while passing orders of assessment.

For the second category, the court noted that the inability of Governments of other States to produce 'C' Form declarations was a problem that could not be addressed in this batch of cases. The court emphasized that cases not covered by Section 8(1) of the CST Act are covered by Section 8(2), and the local Sales Tax Laws of respective States usually exempt sales made to the local Government.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the challenge to the validity of Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and provided a 30-day period for assessees to file statutory appeals. The respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps during this period. The court also directed appellate authorities to consider the observations made in paragraphs 74 to 77 regarding the definition of "manufacture" while deciding appeals.

All writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates