2004 (5) TMI 562 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption claim on the turnover of sales of tanned skins under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Levy of interest under section 8(1) of the Act.
3. Interpretation of the term "tax admittedly payable."
4. Bona fide dispute by the dealer regarding the transaction in question.
5. Relevance of previous court judgments in determining liability to pay interest.
6. Comparison with Supreme Court judgments in similar cases.
7. Dispute resolution in cases of classification of goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dealer in raw hides and skins of animals who claimed exemption on the turnover of sales of tanned skins under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing officer rejected this claim, leading to a series of appeals culminating in the present revision against the Tribunal's order.

2. The Tribunal had deleted the levy of interest under section 8(1) of the Act, citing that the dealer was bona fidely disputing the transaction in question as Central sales. However, the court found that the liability to pay interest by the dealer was established based on a close reading of a division Bench judgment.

3. The interpretation of the term "tax admittedly payable" was crucial in this case. The court examined the dealer's acceptance of the Tribunal's order rejecting the claim for export of sale, which amounted to an admission of Central sales tax by the dealer within the meaning of the Act.

4. The dealer's bona fide dispute regarding the transaction was considered in light of previous court judgments. The court differentiated the present case from a Supreme Court case involving a change in the rate of tax, emphasizing the failure of the dealer to establish its claim to export sale.

5. The relevance of previous court judgments, such as the Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. case, was discussed to determine the liability to pay interest. The court highlighted the importance of establishing the calculation of tax payable in accordance with the Act.

6. Comparisons were drawn with Supreme Court judgments, including J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, to clarify the dealer's obligations and liabilities in the present case. The court distinguished these cases based on the specific factual and legal contexts.

7. The judgment also addressed the resolution of disputes in cases of classification of goods, emphasizing the dealer's responsibility to pay the difference amount of tax if a classification dispute is resolved against them. Ultimately, the revision was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order regarding the deletion of interest under section 8(1) of the Act.