1999 (6) TMI 463 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and adjudicate the case.
2. Applicability of the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to alleged discrimination.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice and relevant provisions of the TNGST Act and Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Jurisdiction
The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, 1992, which covers disputes related to the levy, assessment, collection, and enforcement of any tax under specified State Acts. The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the petitioners, including the interpretation of Section 13 of the TNGST Act and Rule 18 of the TNGST Rules, fall within its jurisdiction. The first issue was answered in favor of the petitioners.

Issue No. 2: Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation
The Tribunal analyzed various precedents on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The petitioners claimed that the Government of Tamil Nadu had promised purchase tax exemptions, which should be enforceable under these principles. However, the Tribunal found the allegations vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Government orders cited by the petitioners did not apply to private sector sugar factories and that the petitioners had already availed of the tax deferral scheme under G.O. No. 989, dated September 1, 1988. The Tribunal concluded that there was no clear promise to private sector sugar factories and that the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not applicable. This issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue No. 3: Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The petitioners argued that denying them the benefit of purchase tax subsidy while granting it to other private sector sugar mills like Bannari Amman Sugars and Ponni Sugars was discriminatory. The Tribunal examined the specific circumstances under which subsidies were granted to these companies and found that the petitioners had not applied for such relief before the issuance of G.O. No. 989, dated September 1, 1988. The Tribunal also noted that other private sector mills that commenced production after the issuance of G.O. No. 989 did not receive subsidies either. The Tribunal held that the petitioners had not established a case of discrimination or arbitrariness. This issue was also decided against the petitioners.

Issue No. 4: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioners claimed that the respondents' actions violated principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioners had remedies available through appeals and revisions if there were errors in the assessment orders. The Tribunal noted that the petitioners had disclosed the excess tax due in their returns, and thus, the demand for payment was justified under Rule 18(3) of the TNGST Rules and Section 13(2) of the TNGST Act. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice in the respondents' actions. This issue was decided in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the petitions, vacated all interim orders, and allowed the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioners were advised to seek statutory remedies if there were any erroneous assessment orders.