1996 (7) TMI 502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of the effective date of a government notification granting exemption under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case revolved around the interpretation of the effective date of a government notification granting exemption under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The main issue was whether the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 116 dated 8th February, 1989, exempting sales tax on prawns, would be applicable from the date of publication of the notification or from the commencement of the assessment year. The court analyzed the facts of the case where the assessee claimed exemption based on the said notification for the assessment year 1988-89. The Revenue argued that the benefit should only apply from the date of the notification, while the assessee contended that it should cover the entire assessment year.

The court delved into the definition of "year" under section 2(u) of the Act, which signifies the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March. It considered the nature of sales tax as an annual tax on the turnover of the whole year, emphasizing that any exemption granted during the year should benefit the assessee for the entire year. The court referred to the case of Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab [1962] 13 STC 180 (SC) where it was held that unless specified otherwise, an exemption notification operates for the entire year for which the tax is payable, exempting sales of goods throughout the year. The court noted that since the notification in question did not specify a date of operation and the Act did not prohibit granting exemption for the whole assessment year, the G.O. Ms. No. 116 dated 8th February, 1989, would exempt the turnover for the entire year from 1st of April to 31st of March.

Consequently, the court dismissed the Tax Revision Cases (T.R.Cs) as it found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the exemption should only apply from the date of the notification. The judgment concluded that the exemption notification would cover the turnover for the entire assessment year, and hence, the T.R.Cs were dismissed with no order as to costs.