2005 (2) TMI 510 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the balance of sales tax dues for the period October 1 1993 to September 30 1994 under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 or was it exempt from doing so under section 17-A(2) of that Act? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In compliance with the order dated December 31 1996 the payment was in fact made by the appellant. As such the amended notification was indeed an amendment of the first notification dated July 28 1993 consequent upon the revised sanction of the BIFR on August 18 1994 enhancing the need and assistance limits and it was not seeking to retrospectively deny any benefit already conferred on the appellant. We therefore do not need to go into the further question whether the High Court was right in importing section 15 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act into section 17-A.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay interest on sales tax dues under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Exemption from interest payment under section 17-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Validity of the amendment notification limiting the deferred sales tax amount.
4. Retrospective application of the amendment notification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Interest on Sales Tax Dues:
The core issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on the balance of sales tax dues for the period October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1994, under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court concluded that the appellant was indeed liable to pay interest on the deferred sales tax amount as the conditions for exemption under section 17-A(2) were not satisfied.

2. Exemption from Interest Payment:
The appellant contended that they were exempt from paying interest under section 17-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. However, the court found that the exemption was conditional upon satisfying the terms laid out in section 17-A(1), which were not met in this case. The deferment was intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the appellant under the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), but the conditions for such deferment were not fully adhered to.

3. Validity of the Amendment Notification:
The appellant argued that the amendment notification, which placed a ceiling on the deferred sales tax amount, was invalid and contrary to the statute. The court held that the initial notification did not grant unlimited tax deferral and that the amendment merely clarified the limit, which was necessary for the scheme's implementation. The amendment notification was thus valid and did not retrospectively alter any benefits already conferred.

4. Retrospective Application of the Amendment Notification:
The appellant claimed that the amendment notification could not retrospectively affect the first notification issued under section 17-A. The court found that the amendment did not operate retrospectively but was a clarification of the original limit on the deferred amount. The High Court had correctly interpreted that the amendment notification did not retrospectively deny any benefit conferred on the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellant was liable to pay interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court held that the amendment notification was valid and did not retrospectively alter any benefits. The appellant was entitled to sales tax deferral only to the extent necessary for rehabilitation, and any excess would attract interest under section 24(3). The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →