9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1981 (8) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to order of Commercial Tax Officer directing application under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act for registration. Analysis: The petitioner, a nationalized jute company, challenged an order directing them to apply under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act as a transferee for registration. The petitioner argued that the Act's provisions regarding liabilities of jute companies prior to the appointed day conflict with section 17 of the Sales Tax Act. Section 5(1) of the Act specifies that liabilities of a jute company before the appointed day are the company's responsibility, not the Central Government's or the corporation's. This contradicts the scheme of section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, which aims to prevent tax evasion through business transfers. The judgment analyzed the Act's provisions and highlighted that claims for taxes accrued before the appointed day must be made under section 17 of the Act. The Second Schedule prioritizes revenue and taxes, indicating that claims for such taxes should be made before the Commissioner of Payments. The court concluded that the Act's scheme conflicts with the liability under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, making the petitioner ineligible to be considered a "transferee" under the Sales Tax Act. The judgment referenced a High Court decision regarding nationalization not constituting a transfer under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the nationalization of their jute company also did not amount to a transfer under the Act. The court, based on its findings, determined that section 17 of the Sales Tax Act does not apply to the petitioner's case, and the Commercial Tax Officer erred in directing the application under that section. The court allowed the application, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized that section 17 of the Sales Tax Act is not applicable to the petitioner's situation. The court refused the stay of operation of the order and made the rule absolute.
|
