1996 (3) TMI 475 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the petitioner to the Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) scheme for the export of perfumed hair oil.
2. Inclusion of hair oil under the category of "cosmetics and toiletries."
3. Delay in processing the petitioner's applications by the respondents.
4. Award of interest on the amount due to the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the petitioner to the Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) scheme for the export of perfumed hair oil:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of hair oils and other products, sought the benefit of the CCS scheme announced by the Government of India for the years 1978-79 and continued for subsequent years. The petitioner had previously received benefits under this scheme. The issue arose when the government revised the scheme and excluded hair oil from the list of eligible items effective from 31st March, 1984. The petitioner claimed that they were entitled to the benefits for the period from 23rd April, 1981 to 31st March, 1984, as hair oil was not explicitly excluded during this period.

2. Inclusion of hair oil under the category of "cosmetics and toiletries":
The petitioner argued that hair oil should be included under "cosmetics and toiletries," relying on various judgments, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v. Union of India. The court in Tata Oil Mills held that in the absence of specific exclusion, hair oil should be considered as part of "cosmetics and toiletries" based on common parlance and dictionary definitions. The Gujarat High Court concurred with this interpretation, stating that hair oil is generally understood to be a cosmetic and toiletry item, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the scheme until the exclusion was explicitly mentioned on 31st March, 1984.

3. Delay in processing the petitioner's applications by the respondents:
The petitioner's applications for cash assistance were kept pending for an extended period without any decision. The petitioner was informed in March 1988 to approach different respondents, and despite approaching the first respondent in May 1988, no action was taken. The court noted that the respondents failed to decide on the applications even after being informed about the Bombay High Court's judgment in a similar case. The court criticized the respondents for their inaction and delay, stating that the matter should have been resolved within a reasonable period.

4. Award of interest on the amount due to the petitioner:
The petitioner requested interest on the amount due, which was contested by the respondents. The court, however, found that the respondents' delay in processing the applications and ignoring the relevant judgment warranted the award of interest. The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner Rs. 7,32,411.81 with 15% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition until the date of actual payment. The court emphasized that no dispute was raised regarding the amount calculated by the petitioner, and thus, there was no need to direct the authority to recompute the cash assistance.

Conclusion:
The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that they were entitled to the benefit of the CCS scheme for the export of perfumed hair oil until 30th March, 1984. The court directed the respondents to pay the amount claimed along with interest due to the undue delay in processing the applications. The court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, thereby allowing the application.

← Previous Next →