1997 (1) TMI 466 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the notification dated 1st July 1958 under the State Act gave unconditional exemption to textiles? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The contention must be rejected having regard to the terms of the three notifications issued under the provisions of the Central Act. It will be noted that the phrase used is all the notifications . The phrase using the plural covers not only the notification dated 12th August 1980 but also the only other notification that meets the requirements being the said notification dated 14th December 1957. The State Government therefore acted upon the basis that the said notification dated 14th December 1957 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Act was in force on 2nd January 1981. The appellant its officer cannot be heard to contend that the terms of the notification dated 2nd January 1981 were the result of non-application of mind and that the said notification dated 14th December 1957 had stood impliedly rescinded long before 2nd January 1981. Amendment of the writ petition to challenge the final assessment orders wrongly rejected

Summary

Issues Involved: Validity of notifications under the Central Sales Tax Act and Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, whether the notifications dated 14th December 1957 were superseded by subsequent notifications, and the implications for tax exemptions on tyre cord fabric.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Supersession of Notifications:
The primary issue was whether the notifications dated 14th December 1957, issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, were superseded by subsequent notifications, particularly the one dated 1st July 1958, and the insertion of entry 18 in the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act in 1964.

The appellant contended that the 1957 notifications were implicitly rescinded by the 1958 notification, which gave unconditional exemption to textiles, thereby attracting section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. This was argued to cover the field and implicitly rescind the 1957 notification.

The court rejected this contention, noting that the notification dated 2nd January 1981 explicitly stated that "all the notifications" issued under section 8(5) in respect of sales of tyre cord fabric made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce by any dealer having his place of business in the State should stand superseded. The use of the plural "all the notifications" included the 1957 notification, indicating it was still in force as of 2nd January 1981.

2. Interpretation of the Notifications:
The court emphasized that the phrase "all the notifications" used in the 1981 notification covered both the 1980 notification and the 1957 notification. The State Government acted on the basis that the 1957 notification was still in force, and the appellant could not argue that the 1981 notification was a result of non-application of mind.

3. Analysis of Provisions:
Given the resolution of the primary issue, the court found it unnecessary to analyze the provisions of the Central and State Acts under which the notifications were issued for the purpose of examining the appellant's contention.

Judgment and Orders:
The appeal (C.A. No. 3381 of 1993) was dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, related appeals and review petitions (C.A. No. 3382 of 1993 and Review Petition No. 1674 of 1993 in S.L.P. (C) No. 8995 of 1982) were also dismissed.

However, in C.A. Nos. 3179 to 3182 of 1985, the appeals were allowed in light of the above judgment, with no order as to costs.

In C.A. No. 1757 of 1982, where the assessee had challenged provisional assessments, the court found no valid ground for the rejection of the amendment to the writ petition to challenge the final assessment orders. The court directed that for the remaining assessment year 1974-75, the assessee should file a statutory appeal within 12 weeks, and the bar of limitation should not be considered, ensuring the appeal is decided on merits. No order as to costs was made.