1993 (1) TMI 272 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, classification of petitioner's products under entry 95 or 115, applicability of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, recovery of sales tax from Public Health and Engineering Department.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, arguing that their products fall under entry 95 and not entry 115. They also contended that as a sick industrial company, coercive recovery measures cannot be taken against them under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. Additionally, they sought recovery of sales tax from the Public Health and Engineering Department.

2. The petitioner, a manufacturer of asbestos cement pressure pipes, disputed the classification of their products under entry 95 or 115 of the RST Act. The rates of tax applicable under these entries varied over time, and the petitioner claimed their product was consistently assessed under entry 95 until a certain date. The dispute in question pertained to the period from July 1, 1987, to March 31, 1989, with differing rates of tax under the relevant entries during this period.

3. The respondent department assessed the petitioner's products under entry 115 for the disputed period, contrary to the provisional assessment under entry 95. The petitioner argued that provisional assessments are subject to final determination, and the application under section 12A of the RST Act was not maintainable. The court highlighted the appeal process available under the RST Act for such disputes, emphasizing the hierarchy of courts and tribunals for resolution.

4. The court emphasized that the classification of goods under specific entries is a question of fact best determined by authorities under the RST Act. It stated that such matters should be addressed through the appeal process provided by the Act and not in writ jurisdiction, especially when multiple interpretations are possible. The judgment stressed the availability of legal remedies within the statutory framework for tax classification disputes.

5. Regarding the petitioner's argument about passing on the sales tax liability to the Public Health and Engineering Department, the court held that such contractual arrangements are factual issues to be determined based on the specific contract terms. It stated that writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving contract-related matters, which are contingent on individual agreements.

6. The court addressed the petitioner's claim under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, noting that coercive recovery measures cannot be initiated during the pendency of inquiries or schemes under the Act. It highlighted the overriding effect of the SIC (SP) Act on recovery proceedings, emphasizing the need for consent from the Board for any coercive actions, including the recovery of sales tax dues. As a result, the court prohibited coercive measures for sales tax recovery until the matter was resolved by the Board.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition to the extent that no coercive measures could be taken for sales tax recovery until the matter was resolved by the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, emphasizing the statutory provisions governing tax classification disputes and recovery proceedings.