1994 (1) TMI 271 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Petitioner seeking concession in paying sales tax arrears
- Preferential treatment given to another industry affecting petitioner's business
- Allegation of violation of articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution
- Comparison of petitioner's case with a sick industrial company
- Interpretation of concessions granted to the other industry
- Rejection of petitioner's request for similar treatment
- Legal principles regarding concessions and equal treatment

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, an industry manufacturing vanaspathi, filed a writ petition seeking a concession to pay sales tax arrears in installments similar to another industry, Tungabhadra Industries Limited. The petitioner claimed that the preferential treatment given to Tungabhadra Industries Limited adversely affected its business, alleging a violation of articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution. The government contended that Tungabhadra Industries Limited was declared a sick industrial company and granted concessions under specific provisions. The government highlighted that the concessions were not exemptions or reductions in sales tax rates, and Tungabhadra Industries Limited still collected sales tax at the standard rate.

The court found that the petitioner's assumption of concessions granted to Tungabhadra Industries Limited was baseless, as the concessions were aimed at preventing closure due to financial distress. The court emphasized that Tungabhadra Industries Limited's concessions did not involve exemption or reduction of sales tax rates. The court also cited a legal precedent stating that concessions are not a matter of right and cannot be demanded based on equal treatment principles. The court held that the petitioner had no grounds to equate itself with Tungabhadra Industries Limited and dismissed the writ petition, ruling that neither article 14 nor article 301 of the Constitution supported the petitioner's claims.

Furthermore, the court referenced the legal principle that legislative bodies, not the courts, have the authority to grant concessions to specific groups of taxpayers. As the petitioner failed to establish a valid case for relief, the court dismissed the petition without costs. The judgment concluded that the petitioner's comparison with Tungabhadra Industries Limited, a sick industrial company with specific concessions, did not warrant similar treatment for the petitioner, emphasizing the discretionary nature of concessions and the lack of legal grounds for the petitioner's claims.