2015 (4) TMI 1092 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Leviability of surcharge on turnover tax - Circular/clarification had been issued in regards to this - Held that - the clarification/circular dated August 31, 2001 bearing No. P.16(4)Tax/Commissioner/2000/1076 may have been addressed to Indian Oil Corporation Limited but it is a general circular and has been notified as a notification. Therefore, by relying on the judgment of this court in the case of CTO v. Instrumentation Ltd., Kota, the clarification/circular has been correctly interpreted by the Tax Board that the surcharge on turnover tax is not leviable. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Surcharge on turnover tax levied by assessing officer; Interpretation of circular/clarification dated August 31, 2001; Applicability of circular on all assessees; Legality of impugned orders passed by Tax Board.

Analysis:
The primary issue in the instant petitions revolves around the surcharge on turnover tax imposed by the assessing officer. Both appellate authorities, including the Tax Board, concluded that, based on the circular/clarification issued on August 31, 2001 by the Additional Commissioner (Tax), the surcharge on turnover tax is not leviable. The counsel for the assessee referred to a previous judgment by the court in a similar case and argued that the circular had been correctly interpreted by the Tax Board. On the other hand, the counsel for the Revenue attempted to distinguish the previous judgment, claiming that the circular dated August 31, 2001, was specific to Indian Oil Corporation Limited and not applicable to all assessees. It was contended that the circular was merely a clarification and not a notification, thus rendering it inapplicable to the current scenario.

Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court analyzed the circular dated August 31, 2001, and deemed it to be a general circular, despite being addressed to Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Citing previous judgments by the apex court, the court emphasized the binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, even if they provide a different interpretation. Consequently, the court found the judgment in a previous case to be directly applicable to the present situation and declined to deviate from that interpretation in the current petitions.

In conclusion, the court found no flaws, illegalities, or perversities in the impugned orders issued by the Tax Board. As a result, the revision petitions were dismissed, with no specific order regarding costs.