9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1971 (11) TMI 143 - SC - VAT and Sales Taxwhether the assessee comes under clause, for levy of purchase tax? Held that - As in all the appeals, except in Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 1969, the learned single judge has directed the assessing authority to reconsider and vary the order of assessment. That direction has been confirmed by the Letters Patent Bench in the said appeals. These directions, in our opinion, do not require any interference by this court, except to make it clear that the fresh assessments will have to be made under section 11AA of the Amendment Act, and subject to the directions contained in this judgment.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment orders under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. Deduction claims under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. 3. Levy of sales tax on "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 4. Impact of amendments made by the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. 5. Validity of the High Court's decision in quashing or directing reconsideration of assessment orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the assessment orders under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948: The State of Punjab challenged the judgments of the Punjab High Court that either quashed the orders of assessment of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer or directed the officers to reconsider and pass fresh orders. The assessments were made under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and pertained to the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63. The controversy revolved around the assessment of sales tax on cotton, which is classified as "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Deduction claims under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act: The respondents, who were different assessees, claimed deductions from their gross turnover under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. The deductions were claimed for the purchase price of unginned cotton that had been sold as ginned cotton to registered dealers or for inter-State trade and commerce. The assessing authority allowed deductions only on the purchase value of cotton sold and not on its sale price, and did not consider the sale of cotton seeds for deductions, as they were deemed different from cotton. 3. Levy of sales tax on "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: The respondents contended that the levy of sales tax on cotton, a "declared good," was illegal and opposed to Section 15 of the Central Act, as no stage for levy of tax had been fixed. The High Court had previously decided in Patel Cotton Company Private Ltd. v. The State of Punjab that the sale of ginned cotton and cotton seeds should be considered as the sale of the same goods purchased, thus entitling the dealer to full deductions. However, this decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal and Others, which held that ginning is a manufacturing process and cotton seeds are distinct from cotton. 4. Impact of amendments made by the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967: The Amendment Act introduced several changes, including defining "declared goods," fixing the stage of levy for purchase tax, and mandating the review of all assessments made before its commencement. The amendments aimed to align the Punjab Act with the Central Act and rectify the infirmities pointed out by the Supreme Court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab, which had declared the original scheme of levy illegal for not fixing a definite stage for tax collection. 5. Validity of the High Court's decision in quashing or directing reconsideration of assessment orders: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had directed the assessing authority to reconsider and modify the orders of assessment in accordance with the law laid down in Patel Cotton Company Private Ltd. However, in Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 1969, the High Court quashed the order of assessment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have directed the assessing authority to reconsider the assessment order rather than quashing it entirely. The Supreme Court directed that fresh assessments be made under Section 11AA of the Amendment Act, considering the new scheme of taxation for declared goods. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 2319 and 2320 of 1968 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1467 to 1470 of 1969, subject to the directions that fresh assessments be made under Section 11AA of the Amendment Act. Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 1969 was allowed in part, modifying the High Court's order to direct the assessing authority to reconsider the assessment order rather than quashing it. The fresh assessments must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Amendment Act, without reference to the decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Chandu Lal Kishori Lal and Others, which was based on the Act as it stood on April 1, 1960.
|
