1992 (9) TMI 342 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Tribunal to interpret the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978.
2. Correctness of the Tribunal's decision to extend benefits of remission of interest from the date of the Government Resolution.
3. Tribunal's interpretation of the Government Resolution regarding the postponement of sales tax dues.

Issue-wise Analysis:

Re: Question No. 1: Competence of the Tribunal to Interpret the Government Resolution
The core issue here is whether the Tribunal has the authority to interpret a Government Resolution that provides relief to sick units but is not issued under any specific provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The judgment clarifies that the resolution in question is not outside the statutory framework of the Sales Tax Act. Section 55 of the Sales Tax Act allows the State Government to remit taxes in the public interest or to address inequitable situations. The resolution postpones the recovery of sales tax dues as of March 31, 1978, and remits interest for the moratorium period. Therefore, the Tribunal has the competence to interpret this resolution as it is issued under the provisions of the Act.

Re: Question No. 2: Extension of Benefits of Remission of Interest
The judgment interprets the relevant date for the application of the resolution's benefits. The Tribunal initially held that the remission of interest should start from March 16, 1978, the date of the resolution. However, the judgment clarifies that the correct date should be March 31, 1978, for sales tax dues or returns submitted prior to this date, even if assessment orders are passed subsequently. The Tribunal erred in setting the remission date as March 16, 1978. The correct interpretation is that the remission of interest should commence from March 31, 1978, for a period of three years, i.e., until March 31, 1981.

Re: Question No. 3: Postponement of Sales Tax Dues
The Tribunal's interpretation that the resolution did not grant postponement of sales tax dues from the date of filing of returns but only from March 16, 1978, was contested. The judgment clarifies that the postponement should indeed start from March 31, 1978, and not from the date of filing of returns or from March 16, 1978. The resolution's objective was to assist sick units as of March 31, 1978, and postponing dues from any other date would not align with this objective. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision is affirmed to the extent that the postponement of recovery of sales tax dues and interest thereon should be from March 31, 1978.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal was competent to interpret the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978, under the provisions of section 55 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal was correct in extending the benefit of remission of interest on postponed dues but erred in setting the relevant date as March 16, 1978, instead of March 31, 1978. The Government Resolution granted postponement of recovery of sales tax dues from March 31, 1978, and not from the date of filing of returns or from March 16, 1978. The reference is disposed of with no order as to costs.