2011 (12) TMI 480 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption as per the Government order dated January 6, 1969 denied - printed materials v/s reading books - Held that - Inasmuch as the notification issued in G.O.P. No. 40, Revenue, dated January 6, 1969 is very clear that it grants exemption to a dealer selling reading books, on the factual finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), there is no difficulty to conclude that the notification applies to the case of the petitioner. Be that as it may, on the factual finding by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) in this case, the finding under the impugned order by the first respondent is totally uncalled-for and the reliance placed by the first respondent under the impugned order on the judgment in Papco Offset Printing Works 1998 (1) TMI 508 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has no relevance at all. W.P. allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revisional power exercised by first respondent against Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order granting exemption to dealer for sales of reading books for assessment year 1992-93.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Factual Finding and Exemption Claim
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) granted exemption to the dealer based on a factual finding that the dealer sold reading books, making them eligible for exemption under the Government order dated January 6, 1969. The notification specifically exempts tax payable on sales of reading books, including text books, by any dealer. The court emphasized that the exemption is not restricted to specific classes of people but applies to any dealer selling reading books. The factual finding established the dealer's eligibility for exemption under the notification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Legal Precedents
The Special Government Pleader relied on the judgment in Papco Offset Printing Works case to argue that a person who is merely a printer and cannot prove sales should not be considered a dealer eligible for exemption. However, the court differentiated this case by highlighting a subsequent Division Bench decision in Kannan Art Calenders case. The court noted that the Papco case did not address whether certain materials could be classified as books, and the clarification issued by the Department was not considered. Ultimately, the court found that the Papco judgment was not relevant to the present case.

Issue 3: Conclusion and Decision
After considering arguments from both parties, the court concluded that the factual finding by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner established the dealer's eligibility for exemption under the relevant notification. The court deemed the revisional order by the first respondent as unnecessary and irrelevant, setting it aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual findings and adherence to legal precedents in determining eligibility for tax exemptions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and the court's decision regarding the challenge to the revisional power exercised against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order granting exemption to the dealer for sales of reading books.