2012 (1) TMI 191 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of tax - Request to remand back the matter - whether Value Added Tax was payable in respect of the goods being transported through the State of U.P.

Summary

Issues:
1. Payment of Value Added Tax by respondent No.1 to the State of U.P.
2. Determination of liability for Value Added Tax on goods transported through the State of U.P.
3. Burden of Value Added Tax on customers.
4. Consideration of arrear dues by the High Court.
5. Timely disposal of the case by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The respondent No.1, represented by Mr. Harish N. Salve, expressed readiness to pay the Value Added Tax imposed by the State of U.P. from a specified date, without prejudice to their rights and contentions during the final hearing. This willingness led to the suggestion of sending the matter back to the High Court for determining the payment of Value Added Tax.

2. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, representing the State of U.P., agreed to the proposal as long as the payments were made, indicating no objection to remitting the case back to the High Court for a final decision on the liability for Value Added Tax on goods transported through the State. The Union of India also supported this submission, emphasizing the need for the High Court to decide on the party responsible for paying the tax.

3. Concerns were raised on behalf of the customers regarding the burden of the Value Added Tax, prompting a clarification that the High Court must determine who would ultimately bear this tax liability, depending on whether it is found payable or not. This issue of tax burden on customers was highlighted for the High Court's consideration.

4. The High Court was directed to address the question of arrear dues while making a final decision on the matter, ensuring that all outstanding payments are taken into account during the resolution process. The importance of this aspect was underscored in the judgment to ensure a comprehensive resolution of financial obligations.

5. Emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution, the High Court was urged to promptly dispose of the case, ideally within a timeframe of three months from the communication of the Supreme Court's order. This directive aimed to facilitate a swift conclusion to the legal proceedings, promoting efficiency and timely adjudication of the tax-related issues at hand.