2013 (1) TMI 709 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, specifically regarding the applicability of entry 55 in Schedule C to moulded plastic footwears and the clarification issued by the State Government under section 56(3) of the Act.

Issue 1: Effect of new entry 55 in Schedule C
The primary issue is whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the effect of the new entry 55 in Schedule C with effect from January 1, 2007, under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The State Government clarified that moulded plastic footwears would attract VAT at 12½ per cent even before January 1, 2007. The amended entry explicitly includes moulded plastic footwears, whether of single or multiple moulds, attracting VAT, whereas the unamended entry lacked such specificity.

Issue 2: Interpretation of entry 55 and reliance on precedent
The second issue questions whether the Tribunal was correct in overturning the State Government's clarification under section 56(3) and holding that entry 55 applied to both single and double moulded plastic footwear even before January 1, 2007. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of exclusion in the original entry, leading to the conclusion that moulded plastic footwears included both single and multiple moulds. The Tribunal's reliance on precedent cases like Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. and Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana was also a point of contention.

Issue 3: Tribunal's authority in fiscal matters
The third issue questions whether the Tribunal was justified in substituting its views for those of the State Government regarding fiscal matters. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the VAT at four per cent on single or multiple moulds of moulded plastic footwears was challenged, but the Court found no fault in the Tribunal's interpretation.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for adjudication. The judgment highlighted the importance of the specific wording in statutory entries and the Tribunal's authority in interpreting fiscal matters under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.