2008 (9) TMI 883 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exclusion of room coolers from the entry referable to 12 per cent rate of tax - Whether exclusion of section 5, Limitation Act has to be taken as having been provided by necessary implication? Held that - The revision petition is barred by limitation by two days and in the overall circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. The revision petition be registered to its regular number. On a comprehension of the facts noticed by the learned appellate authority and having examined the notifications with the said budget speech, this court is satisfied that the learned appellate authorities have rightly construed the later notifications as being intended to exclude the room coolers from the entry referable to 12 per cent rate of tax. The view as taken by the appellate authorities calls for no interference.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the revision petition filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Whether the revision petition is barred by limitation.
3. Classification of "room coolers" under the appropriate tax rate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The primary issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay, applies to a revision petition filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The court examined the scheme of the Act of 1994 and the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was argued that the Act of 1994 is a complete code and does not provide for the condonation of delay under Section 86. However, the court noted that the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be either expressly stated or implied by necessary implication. The court found no express exclusion in Section 86 and determined that the scheme of the Act did not imply such exclusion either. Therefore, the court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for the purpose of condoning delay in filing revision petitions under Section 86 of the Act of 1994.

2. Whether the Revision Petition is Barred by Limitation:
The revision petition filed by the Revenue was barred by limitation by two days. The petitioner moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The court, after considering the overall circumstances, found it appropriate to condone the delay. The court overruled the objection raised by the non-petitioner regarding the maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay, allowing the revision petition to be registered to its regular number.

3. Classification of "Room Coolers" under the Appropriate Tax Rate:
The substantive issue on merits was the classification of "room coolers" for tax purposes. The non-petitioner-dealer was assessed for the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 with a tax rate of 12% on room coolers, treating them as electronic goods. However, the appellate authority and the Tax Board found that the notifications dated March 7, 1994, and March 27, 1995, omitted "room coolers" from the entry of electronic goods, thus subjecting them to a lower tax rate of 10%. The court agreed with the appellate authorities' interpretation that the omission of "room coolers" from the 12% tax entry was intentional and aligned with the budget speech of the Chief Minister, which indicated that "room coolers" should be taxed at 10%. The court found no reason to interfere with the appellate authorities' decision.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition on merits, affirming the appellate authorities' decision that "room coolers" should be taxed at 10% rather than 12%. The court also noted that similar revision petitions on the same issue had already been dismissed, and the decisions had attained finality. Thus, the revision petition was dismissed with no costs.

← Previous Next →