1980 (1) TMI 205 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Rate of tax on turnover of stainless steel and levy of surcharge.

Analysis:
The revision pertains to the assessment year 1972-73, where the respondent assessee, dealing in stainless steel, iron, and steel, claimed a lower tax rate of three percent on stainless steel turnover, arguing it is not a classified item. Additionally, the assessee contended that no surcharge was applicable as stainless steel is a specified good under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Assessing Authority and Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, but the Revising Authority accepted it. Consequently, the Commissioner filed a revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act challenging this decision.

The dispute primarily revolves around determining the applicable tax rate on stainless steel turnover and whether a surcharge is leviable. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, before its amendment in 1972, listed specific goods of special importance. The question arises whether stainless steel falls under any category mentioned in this section. The interpretation of this clause was deliberated by the Supreme Court in a previous case, emphasizing that each sub-category within the listed items retains its identity as a separate taxable item for sales tax purposes. The enumeration in the statute exhaustively lists distinct categories for taxation, with each specified item considered a separate taxable entity for single-point taxation in a series of sales.

The judgment clarifies that the separate categories of specified goods in Section 14 represent distinct classes for taxation, with an exhaustive enumeration. As stainless steel is not explicitly included in these specified categories, it cannot be considered covered by them. Therefore, the tax rate applicable to stainless steel turnover is determined to be 3 1/2%. Regarding the surcharge, the Assistant Commissioner concluded it was not leviable on this turnover, a decision not challenged by the Department. Consequently, the Court only addresses the tax rate issue, allowing the revision in part without costs awarded due to the absence of the respondent during proceedings.