2015 (3) TMI 1305 - HC - Income Tax

Sales Tax Subsidy receipt pursuant to Haryana Government s Scheme - to be treated as revenue receipt or one falling in the capital scheme - Held that - A taking note of the salient features of the sales tax exemption scheme as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT correctly held to be as capital receipt. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of the ITAT does not disclose any infirmity. No substantial question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Sales Tax Subsidy as revenue receipt or falling under the capital scheme.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of a Sales Tax Subsidy of Rs. 2,00,64,000 received by the assessee under the Haryana Government's scheme. The primary issue was whether this amount should be considered as a revenue receipt or as falling within the capital scheme. The assessee, a manufacturer of catalysts for the auto industries, received the subsidy for the assessment year 2006-07 under a 50% sales tax exemption scheme to promote local industry.

The Assessing Officer (AO) initially treated the subsidy amount as a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT 1997. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed these findings after considering the features of the sales tax exemption scheme and the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. The Revenue was aggrieved by the ITAT's decision and filed an appeal.

The Revenue argued that the withdrawal of the subsidy scheme by the State was a crucial factor to be considered. They referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors., which directed the State to reconsider the withdrawal of the subsidy. The Revenue contended that the sales tax subsidy should be treated as a revenue receipt and taxed accordingly, relying on the Sahney Steel case and other relevant precedents.

The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba, examined the submissions and found that the ITAT's order had correctly applied the law. They emphasized the Supreme Court's stance that subsidies given by the government to promote industry, especially for capital infrastructure development, should be treated as capital receipts. The Court referred to its decision in CIT v. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd., where the principles established in Ponni Sugars case were reiterated. Consequently, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.