9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 1264 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the contractee-Election Department can supersede/override the decision of the taxing authority like respondent No. 5, the Commissioner of Taxes, who is appointed for carrying out the purpose of the Act? Whether the supply of materials in question comes within the purview of the works contract or is wholly exempted from the purview of VAT in view of the provisions of section 9 read with entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Act, 2003? Held that - This court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not supposed to pay the VAT against supply of the printing materials to the Election Department in connection with general elections to Lok Sabha, 2009. Consequently, the impugned orders dated April 2, 2009 and April 27, 2009 (annexures F and H, respectively) are quashed and the letter dated September 23, 2009 (annexure-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) is also set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the contract for printing materials falls under the definition of "books, periodicals, and journals" exempt from VAT as per the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Whether the Election Department can override the decision of the Commissioner of Taxes regarding VAT exemption. 3. Whether the supply of printed materials constitutes a works contract subject to VAT. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition and Exemption under VAT: The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Press, contended that the printed materials (compendium, handbooks, manuals, etc.) fall within the definition of "books, periodicals, and journals" as per entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which exempts them from VAT. The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, confirmed this exemption in his order dated May 28, 2009, stating that the materials supplied were bound books with covers and thus exempt from VAT. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that the taxing authority's interpretation is binding and cannot be overridden by the Election Department or any other administrative authority. 2. Authority of the Election Department: The court examined whether the Election Department could supersede the decision of the Commissioner of Taxes. Citing precedents, the court noted that the Commissioner of Taxes exercises quasi-judicial functions, and his decisions are binding unless overturned by an appropriate appellate authority or court of law. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries, which established that the interpretation of tax laws by the taxing authority is binding on that authority and cannot be contradicted by administrative directions. 3. Nature of the Contract - Works Contract or Supply Simplicitor: The court addressed whether the supply of printed materials constituted a works contract. The petitioner argued that the materials were bound books, not mere printing materials, and thus did not fall under the description of a works contract as per the Sixth Schedule to the Act, 2003. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the supply of bound books is a supply simplicitor and does not involve installation or fitting, which are characteristics of a works contract. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner is not liable to pay VAT on the supplied printing materials, as they are exempt under entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Act, 2003. The impugned orders dated April 2, 2009, and April 27, 2009, and the letter dated September 23, 2009, were quashed. The court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the Finance Department or the Election Department should not flout the order of the taxing authority. Respondents were given the liberty to approach the court for modification or alteration of the order if necessary.
|
