9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 759 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxRate of Sales Tax - Eligibility for Exemption Notification Classification Canvas Cloth - Entry 53 Held that - No need to notice the Notification issued by the State Government, dated 31.01.1985 - Entry 53 specifically excludes durries, carpets, druggets, hosiery goods, readymade garments, hessian or jute cloth etc., but includes goods specified in annexure to the said Entry - The goods which are included within the meaning of textiles are cotton fabrics of all varieties, rayon or artificial silk fabrics including staple fibre fabrics of all varieties, woolen fabrics of all varieties, fabrics made of a mixture of any two or more of the above fibres, viz. cotton, rayon artificial silk staple fibre or wool and lastly canvas cloth, tarpaulins and water proof cloth - Tribunal, which is the last fact-finding Authority has positively come to the conclusion that the appellant is a dealer who purchases canvass cloth and effects sale of the canvass cloth and therefore exigible for exemption in view of the notification issued by the State Government - High Court was not justified in setting aside the order so passed by the Tribunal - Thus, this court allows these appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Tribunal Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Claim for exemption from sales tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96. 2. Dismissal of exemption claim by Assessing Authority and First Appellate Authority. 3. Appeal before Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur. 4. High Court's judgment on Trade Tax Revision case. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant, a dealer in jute and canvas cloth, claimed exemption from sales tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 based on a State Government Notification. The Assessing Authority and First Appellate Authority dismissed the claim, imposing tax liabilities. The appellant appealed to the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, which held that the canvass cloth dealt by the assessee is made of jute and is taxable under the Act. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Supreme Court. Issue 2: The relevant Entry 53 of the Notification excludes certain commodities but includes canvass cloth, tarpaulins, and waterproof cloth within the definition of textiles. The appellant argued that as a purchaser of canvass cloth, they are eligible for exemption under the Notification. However, the fact-finding authorities found that the canvass cloth purchased by the appellant is jute cloth, thus not falling under the definition of textiles as per Entry 53. The Supreme Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal and High Court, ultimately dismissing the appeal. Issue 3: In a separate case for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the appellant claimed exemption from sales tax under the Act as a dealer in cloth made of jute. The Assessing Authority imposed tax liabilities, leading to appeals before the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal determined that the appellant purchased and sold canvass cloth, allowing exemption. However, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue 4: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, as a dealer purchasing and selling canvass cloth, is eligible for exemption under the State Government's Notification. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order, ultimately allowing the appeals and restoring the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal related to the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96, upholding the decisions of the fact-finding authorities and the High Court. Additionally, the Court allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Tribunal's order in favor of the appellant.
|
