2014 (1) TMI 1802 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

First sale of wheat and wheat products - sale of flour - exemption of levy of tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State - The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has liberally interpreted the first notification and modified the language employed therein so as to achieve the intention behind the issuance of the said notification and held that the exemption stipulated under the first notification is not applicable and available to the assessee and thus, rejected the appeals. Held that - The language of the notification is crystal clear. That means, there is no ambiguity in the language employed in the notification by the authority issuing the notification. A plain reading of the notification would demonstrate that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, has exempted levy of tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State for a period of five years from the date of the notification, namely, 02.05.1991 - This Court has reiterated in numerous decisions that if the language of the notification or an executive order is clear and unambiguous, the Courts need not presume anything on the issuance of such notification or order need or delve into the intention behind issuance of such notification or order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of a notification granting exemption from sales tax to roller flour mills under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The case involved an appellant running a roller flour mill, claiming exemption from sales tax under a notification issued by the State Government. The Assessing Authority quantified the tax liability for certain assessment years, which the Appellate Deputy Commissioner later set aside. However, the Revisional Authority disagreed, initiating proceedings to set aside the Appellate Authority's orders. The Revisional Authority and the High Court interpreted the notification liberally, considering the intention behind its issuance to grant exemption only to roller flour mills manufacturing and selling wheat products. This approach was challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when the language of a notification is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to presume the intention behind its issuance. Referring to previous judgments, the Court reiterated that courts should not read into statutes or notifications words that are not explicitly stated. The Court highlighted that the intention of the law-giver should be derived from the plain language of the statute or notification itself. Equitable considerations and assumptions have no place in interpreting taxing statutes, and courts must strictly adhere to the expressed provisions without implying additional meanings.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that both the Revisional Authority and the High Court had erred in delving into the intention of the State Government behind the notification. The Court noted a subsequent notification withdrawing the earlier one due to irregularities, indicating that the State Government did not necessarily issue the first notification based on representations from roller flour mills. Therefore, the Court concluded that neither the Revisional Authority nor the High Court were justified in interpreting the intention behind the notification.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Revisional Authority and the High Court, and restored the order of the First Appellate Authority. The relief granted was limited to the appellant and restricted to the period between the issuance and withdrawal of the first notification.

In summary, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes and notifications based on their clear language, without presuming intentions or implications beyond what is explicitly stated. The Court's decision focused on upholding the plain meaning of the notification in granting exemption from sales tax to roller flour mills, without expanding its scope through interpretative processes.