9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 828 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNotices of default payment of taxes and default assessment of penalties for the financial year 2007-08 - Held that - We do not find ourselves in agreement with the submissions made by Mr Taneja that where the first sale is exempted, subsequent sales would automatically have to be taxed irrespective of the fact that the second sale fully complies with the conditions stipulated under Section 6(2) of the said Act. We are of the view that when the conditions specified in Section 6(2), whether in the main provision or in the provisos, are all satisfied, the dealer would be entitled to exemption. No provision has been brought to our notice which indicates or suggests that the exemption under Section 6(2) in respect of a subsequent sale cannot be granted where the first sale has had the benefit of an exemption.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Delhi State in assessing sales under Section 3(a) of the CST Act. 2. Entitlement to exemption under Section 6(2) of the CST Act for subsequent sales. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Delhi State in Assessing Sales under Section 3(a) of the CST Act: The petitioner argued that the Value Added Tax Officer and the Additional Commissioner in Delhi had no jurisdiction once it was determined that the sales fell under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act). The petitioner contended that if the sales were classified under Section 3(a), Delhi State would lack jurisdiction, and the orders should be quashed. However, during the proceedings, it was agreed by both parties that the sales fell under Section 3(b) of the CST Act. Consequently, the court did not need to examine the jurisdiction issue further. 2. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 6(2) of the CST Act for Subsequent Sales: The primary contention of the petitioner was the entitlement to exemption under Section 6(2) of the CST Act for subsequent sales made to buyers in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, and Maharashtra. The petitioner argued that the conditions stipulated in Section 6(2) were fulfilled and thus, the subsequent sales should be exempt from tax. The Additional Commissioner had disallowed the exemption on the ground that the first sale was exempt, leading to the second sale being taxable. The court examined Section 6(2) of the CST Act, which is a non-obstante provision allowing exemption for subsequent inter-State sales if certain conditions are met: - The first sale could be under Section 3(a) or 3(b). - The subsequent sale must be under Section 3(b). - The subsequent sale must be to a registered dealer. - The goods should be described under Section 8(3) of the CST Act. - The E-1 Form and C-Form must be furnished. The court noted that the purpose of Section 6(2) was to avoid the cascading effect of multiple taxation, as recognized by the Supreme Court in A & G Projects and Technologies Limited v. State of Karnataka. However, the court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision did not imply that a second sale must be taxed if the first sale was exempt, provided the conditions under Section 6(2) were met. The court also referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Jadhavjee Laljee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which emphasized that the conditions of Section 6(2) must be fulfilled for claiming exemption, regardless of whether the first sale was exempt. Conclusion: The court concluded that if the conditions specified in Section 6(2) are satisfied, the dealer is entitled to exemption, irrespective of the first sale's tax status. Since the impugned orders did not examine whether the petitioner met the conditions under Section 6(2) and rejected the exemption claim solely based on the first sale's exemption, the court set aside the assessment and penalty orders. The matter was remanded to the Value Added Tax Officer to determine if the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for exemption under Section 6(2). The petitioner was allowed to submit further documents within four weeks, and the Value Added Tax Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders within two months. The writ petition was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
