1982 (3) TMI 231 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and width of Rule 42-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970.
2. Entitlement to set-off of tax paid on raw materials used in manufacturing goods sold outside the State.
3. Legality of the levy of purchase tax under Section 50 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
4. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Width of Rule 42-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 42-A, specifically whether the set-off claimed by a new industry for sales tax paid on raw materials used in manufacturing goods sold outside the State is permissible. The court examined the legislative intent and the context of Rule 42-A, concluding that the rule's purpose was to provide incentives to new industries without restricting the sale of manufactured goods to within the State. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to encourage industrialization and decentralization, which would be defeated by a restrictive interpretation.

2. Entitlement to Set-off of Tax Paid on Raw Materials
The court analyzed whether the term "sale" in Rule 42-A should be interpreted strictly as defined in the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, meaning sales within the State, or more broadly. The Tribunal had interpreted "sale" in its generic sense, allowing the set-off regardless of whether the goods were sold within the State or outside. The court upheld this interpretation, noting that the legislative intent was to provide incentives to new industries, and a restrictive interpretation would undermine this objective. The court found that the use of raw materials within the State for manufacturing goods was sufficient to qualify for the set-off, irrespective of where the final sale occurred.

3. Legality of the Levy of Purchase Tax under Section 50
The Sales Tax Officer had rejected the set-off claim and levied purchase tax, arguing that the conditions of Rule 42-A were not satisfied because the goods were sold outside the State. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal overturned this, stating that the legislative intent was to provide incentives without restricting sales to within the State. The court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the restrictive interpretation would defeat the purpose of the rule. Therefore, the levy of purchase tax was deemed incorrect.

4. Legality of the Penalty Imposed under Section 45(6)
The Sales Tax Officer had also imposed a penalty under Section 45(6) due to the difference between the assessed tax and the paid tax exceeding 20%. The Tribunal removed this penalty, and the court upheld this decision. The court reasoned that since the set-off was valid, there was no breach of conditions, and thus, no basis for the penalty.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the set-off of the entire amount of tax paid on raw materials, setting aside the levy of purchase tax, and removing the penalty. The interpretation of Rule 42-A should align with the legislative intent of providing incentives to new industries, which includes sales of manufactured goods outside the State. The questions referred to the court were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the State Government. The State Government was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.