2005 (8) TMI 361 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether both land and building must be owned by the unit? Held that - The Committee has not stated anything on the aspect of building being owned by the appellant. The Committee had also not given to the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal and the High Court have not looked into the other aspects raised by the Committee and not considered whether building was owned by the appellant. We, therefore, feel that the correct course would be to remit the matter back to the Committee for consideration on merits. Amongst other things the Committee will also consider whether or not the building is owned by the appellant. The Committee will grant to the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the provision regarding exemption from sales tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
- Whether both land and building must be owned by the unit to avail of the exemption.

Analysis:
1. The appellant applied for exemption from sales tax under the Act, but the Committee rejected the application citing various grounds, including capital investment exceeding 3 lakhs, lack of permanent registration under the Factories Act, incomplete registration of land agreement, missing machine lists, and uncertified building value.

2. The Trade Tax Tribunal acknowledged the lack of hearing opportunity for the appellant but upheld the rejection, emphasizing that to qualify for exemption, both land and building must be owned by the unit. The Tribunal based its decision on the requirement that the land or building must be owned or leased for not less than seven years by the dealer.

3. The revision before the Allahabad High Court solely focused on the ownership aspect of land and building. The High Court strictly interpreted the provision, stating that unless the land was actually owned by the unit, the exemption would not apply. This led to a conflict between previous court decisions on whether a strict or liberal interpretation should be applied to the provision.

4. Upon review by the Supreme Court, it was concluded that the wording of the provision clearly stated "on land or building or both," allowing for ownership of either the land or the building or both to qualify for exemption. The Court emphasized that the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court were incorrect as they only considered land ownership and did not assess building ownership, which was also crucial.

5. The Court directed the matter to be sent back to the Committee for a thorough review, including an examination of whether the building was owned by the appellant. It highlighted the importance of granting the appellant a fair hearing opportunity and considering all aspects raised by the Committee before making a final decision on the exemption application.

6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Committee for a comprehensive evaluation, emphasizing the need to consider building ownership and granting the appellant a proper hearing opportunity. No costs were awarded in the judgment.