1968 (10) TMI 94 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether proof of payment of additional excise duty was necessary for exemption from sales tax.
2. Whether Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14th December, 1957, modified the turnover to be taxable under section 3 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved references to the High Court regarding the exemption from sales tax claimed by an assessee manufacturing and selling biris at various branches. The dispute centered around the requirement of proof of payment of additional excise duty for claiming exemption. The notifications in question were Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, and Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14th December, 1957. The High Court held that the exemption was subject to the payment of additional excise duty as per the latter notification, and failure to establish such payment would render the exemption unavailable. The decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, establishing the necessity of fulfilling the conditions for exemption.

2. The second issue raised was whether Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14th December, 1957, superseded the earlier Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956. The High Court determined that the later notification only supersedes the former when the specified conditions are met. In this case, the exemption under the later notification was contingent upon the payment of additional excise duty on biris and furnishing proof of such payment. If these conditions were not satisfied, the earlier notification would continue to apply, levying sales tax at the prescribed rate. Therefore, the High Court answered the second question in the negative, emphasizing the conditional nature of the exemption under the later notification.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the requirement of proof of payment of additional excise duty for claiming exemption from sales tax and clarified the circumstances under which the later notification supersedes the earlier one. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and relevant precedents to support its conclusions, ultimately ruling in favor of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and awarding costs accordingly.