2005 (9) TMI 606 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for tax concessions under Section 5A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Compliance with conditions in the proviso to Section 5A(1) of the Act.
3. Constitutional validity and interpretation of the proviso to Section 5A(1).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Tax Concessions under Section 5A:

The petitioner, a company registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, sought tax concessions under Section 5A for the period from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002. The company purchased iron ore, which is classified as "goods" under the Act, for manufacturing pig iron. The petitioner claimed that it had been availing of such concessions for several years but was denied the benefit for the relevant period due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not qualify for the concession as it did not purchase raw materials from a registered dealer and the benefit under Section 5A was only applicable to sales tax liability, not purchase tax liability.

2. Compliance with Conditions in the Proviso to Section 5A(1):

The petitioner argued that the proviso to Section 5A(1) imposed an impossible condition, thereby depriving it of the benefit. The proviso required the selling dealer to issue a bill or cash memorandum showing the amount of tax collected, which was not feasible in the petitioner's case as the tax was levied at the purchase point and directly remitted by the petitioner. The petitioner sought a declaration that the proviso should be read as non-operative or non-existent, as it was inconsistent with the main provision and created a discriminatory situation.

3. Constitutional Validity and Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 5A(1):

The court examined the rival contentions and the decision of the Division Bench in Vasavadatta Cements v. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which interpreted Section 5A for a different period. The court noted that Section 5A aimed to extend benefits to manufacturers who paid tax on inputs used for producing finished products sold within the state. The proviso intended to ensure that the tax collected reached the state's coffers, but in the petitioner's case, the tax was paid directly by the petitioner. The court found no intelligible differentia in distinguishing between manufacturers paying tax at the sale point and those paying at the purchase point.

The court held that the proviso should be interpreted to operate only where compliance is possible and not in situations where compliance is impossible due to the nature of the tax levy. The proviso should not render the main provision unconstitutional or unintelligible. The court declared that the proviso should be understood as operative only when compliance is feasible and directed the respondent to implement the proviso accordingly.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the proviso to Section 5A(1) should be interpreted to avoid inconsistency or unconstitutionality. The authorities were directed to extend the benefit of the interpretation to the petitioner and rectify the assessment order accordingly. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.