2005 (5) TMI 613 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a law-abiding taxpayer who has paid tax from their own pocket is in a worse position than one who has not paid the tax.
2. The legality of the refund of tax deposited under protest by the applicant for the period 1-4-1995 to 30-9-1995.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Circular No. 2444 dated 30-3-1996.
4. The impact of various notifications and amendments on tax liability and exemptions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxpayer's Position Relative to Non-Taxpayers:
The core issue is whether a taxpayer who has paid tax from their own pocket should be disadvantaged compared to those who have not paid the tax. The applicant, holding a certificate from the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, manufactured and sold fans and water pumps. The tax was deposited under protest for the period 1-4-1995 to 30-9-1995, although the applicant claimed exemption based on subsequent notifications.

2. Legality of Refund:
The applicant sought a refund of the tax deposited under protest, arguing that the tax was paid out of their own pocket and not realized from customers. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) granted the refund, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, citing the absence of a specific provision for refund within the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

3. Interpretation of Circular No. 2444:
Circular No. 2444, issued on 30-3-1996, directed remission of tax, interest, and penalty for certificate holders of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board. The applicant argued that the Circular's intention was to benefit those who had not realized or deposited the tax, and it should also extend to those who paid out of their own pocket. The Standing Counsel contended that without an express provision for refund in the Circular, the applicant was not entitled to it.

4. Impact of Notifications and Amendments:
Several notifications were discussed:
- Notification No. ST-II-7037 (31-1-1985) exempted sales of specified goods by certified institutions.
- Deletion of column No. 3 by Notification No. TT-2/1903 (31-6-1994) ceased the exemption.
- Notification No. TT-2-3409 (1-10-1994) reinstated the exemption under certain conditions.
- Notification No. TT-2-2454 (5-10-1995) granted full exemption again.

For the period 1-4-1995 to 30-9-1995, the applicant was initially liable for sales tax, but Circular No. 2444 later decided not to recover any tax, interest, or penalty for this period.

Judgment Analysis:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in W.P.I.L. Limited Ghaziabad v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut, which dealt with a similar issue under the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court had held that consistent government policy and subsequent clarificatory notifications implied continuity of exemptions.

The High Court found that the intention of Circular No. 2444 was to alleviate difficulties faced by dealers during the interregnum period without exemptions. The argument that no refund could be granted due to the absence of an explicit provision in the Circular was rejected. The Court emphasized that a welfare state should not disadvantage those who paid taxes out of their own pocket compared to those who did not.

The Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to a refund, interpreting the Circular to implicitly include provisions for refund under the given circumstances. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the first appellate authority's order granting the refund was restored, with costs of Rs. 1000/- awarded to the applicant.

← Previous Next →