1990 (11) TMI 342 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the directions of the Union of India contained in Memo No. F. 121(5)-B/66 Vol. 11 dated March 7 1990 bar the assessment and recovery of the sales tax in the present case? Whether the Hospitality Organisation is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? Held that - Appeal allowed. Set aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the Hospitality Organisation was not a dealer under the Act liable to sales tax for the assessment year 1963-64. We direct the Tribunal to proceed to give effect to this judgment. We need not formally pass orders setting aside the High Court s order rejecting the petition under section 22(2) as non-maintainable as it has not affected the Tribunal s order.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of sales tax on a Hospitality Organisation under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
- Dispute regarding the classification of the Hospitality Organisation as a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act.
- High Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute between two State Governments.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the assessment of sales tax on a Hospitality Organisation under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Tribunal had confirmed the assessment, considering the Organisation's activity of manufacturing goods for sale as a business, thus classifying it as a "dealer" under the Act. The appellant sought a reference to the High Court on two questions, including the applicability of Union of India's directions on sales tax assessment and whether the Organisation qualifies as a "dealer." However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the matter reaching the High Court under section 22(2) of the Act.

The High Court, instead of considering the questions raised, disposed of the petition on the grounds of jurisdiction, citing the dispute between the State Government of Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The High Court deemed such disputes should be adjudicated by the Supreme Court under article 131 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, as the scope of the application under section 22(2)(b) was limited to determining if a legal question arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the question of whether the Hospitality Organisation qualified as a "dealer" was a valid legal issue arising from the Tribunal's decision.

In light of the settled legal position established in a previous case, the Supreme Court decided to forego the usual procedure of directing a reference back to the High Court. The Court noted that a Government Medical Store, not operating with a profit motive, was not liable to be classified as a dealer under the Act. Applying this principle to the Hospitality Organisation, the Court concluded that the Organisation should not have been assessed for sales tax. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the Organisation was not a dealer under the Act for the assessment year in question. The Court directed the Tribunal to implement this judgment, allowing the appeal but making no order as to costs.