1997 (11) TMI 453 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Claim for exemption of purchase tax on wheat purchased from the open market rejected by the commercial tax authority on the ground that the exemption was available only if purchases of wheat were made from the FCI Held that - Appeal dismissed. The High Court rightly pointed out that the reliance on the notification dated January 29, 1985 on behalf of the assessee was misplaced because, it was issued under section 4-A of the Act. The Government could grant exemptions to the turnover of a dealer wholly or in part by a notification issued under section 4-A. That, however, did not have the effect of modifying the earlier notification dated July 18, 1979 issued under section 4-B. Therefore, the exemption from purchase tax under section 4-B could only be claimed if wheat was purchased from FCI and not from the open market.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from purchase tax on wheat purchased from the open market.
2. Rectification of appellate order by the Tribunal.
3. Interpretation of notifications under sections 4-A and 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, a flour mill, sought exemption from purchase tax on wheat bought from the open market as it was a new unit under an Incentive Scheme by the State Government. The Government had exempted mills from tax if wheat was purchased from the Food Corporation of India (FCI). However, due to FCI's inability to supply, mills bought from the open market. The commercial tax authority rejected the exemption claim, leading to appeals. The Tribunal initially upheld the claim through rectification, but the High Court quashed it, stating that the Tribunal wrongly exercised its power without an apparent error. The High Court affirmed that the exemption required FCI purchases, as per the initial notification.

2. The Tribunal's rectification order was challenged by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, arguing that the appellant could not claim exemption without FCI purchases. The appellant cited a 1985 notification under section 4-A as withdrawing the FCI purchase precondition. However, the High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that section 4-B mandated exemptions based on specific conditions, such as FCI purchases for wheat, which the appellant failed to meet. The High Court held that the 1985 notification did not modify the original 1979 notification under section 4-B, thus upholding the denial of exemption for purchases from the open market.

3. The appellant fulfilled the criteria for a new unit under section 4-B and held eligibility certificates for tax exemptions. The High Court clarified that exemptions from purchase tax required compliance with the conditions specified in section 4-B notifications, not section 4-A notifications. The High Court's decision was based on the clear language of the notifications and the legislative intent behind sections 4-A and 4-B. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation, dismissing the appeals and upholding the denial of exemption for purchases made from the open market.