9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of purchase tax - whether the petitioner-sugar mill was liable to pay the purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers - Held that - The respondents therein contended that sugarcane was exempted from purchase tax inter-alia in view of section 4-B of the PGST Act. The Supreme Court noted the definitions in Section 2 of the PGST Act of the terms dealer , goods purchase sale and turnover . The Supreme Court also noted Section 4 of the PGST Act which was the main charging section and section 5 which defines the expression taxable turnover - Analyzing the provisions of the Finance Act, the Supreme Court observed that it provides for levy of different types of commercial taxes which are generally leviable in the State of Bihar and that the object of the Sugarcane Act was to regulate the production, supply and distribution of sugarcane intended for use in sugar factories and for taxation of sugarcane and matters incidental thereto. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan 2002 (1) TMI 1284 - Supreme Court of India , the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point raised before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. In Director of Settlements A.P. and others v. M.R.Apparao and another 2002 (3) TMI 909 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court held that the decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered by, or that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. - The legislature has imposed the tax. The amounts collected may well be available to the legislature to be spent for the purposes mentioned therein and in the statement of objects and reasons. These are aspects which can be gone into only by the Supreme Court and not by this Court for accepting these submissions would in effect result in this Court holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mill s case (1994 (10) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is not good law. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the judgment in M/s Gobind Sugar Mills vs. M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills. 2. Liability to pay tax on the purchase of sugarcane under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 versus the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Judgment in M/s Gobind Sugar Mills vs. M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills: The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred by following the judgment in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills instead of M/s Gobind Sugar Mills, despite the latter having almost identical issues and facts to the present case. The court, however, upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (1995) directly addressed the provisions relevant to the current case. The Supreme Court had considered the definitions in Section 2 of the PGST Act and the main charging sections (Sections 4 and 5). The court found that the appellant's reliance on M/s Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1999) was misplaced as the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills had already dealt with the same provisions that were under consideration in the present case. 2. Liability to Pay Tax on the Purchase of Sugarcane: The appellant argued that they should not be liable to pay purchase tax under the PGST Act, 1948, because the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953, a special Act, should take precedence. The court rejected this argument, reiterating that the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab had already established that purchase tax on sugarcane is levied under Section 4(1) of the PGST Act. The court noted that Section 4-B of the PGST Act does not impose purchase tax but rather affirms or exempts certain purchases from tax in specified situations. The court further clarified that the purchase tax is levied by Section 4(1) itself, and since sugarcane is exempt from sale tax under Section 6, its purchase is taxed. The appellant also contended that the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953, being a special enactment, should override the PGST Act. The court, however, maintained that the doctrine of precedent binds them to follow the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, which considered the same statutory provisions. The court also distinguished the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act and the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act considered in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar, noting that the provisions were not identical to those in the Punjab Acts. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appellant's arguments did not warrant a deviation from the established precedent set by the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab. The appeal was dismissed, and the questions of law were answered against the appellant. The court emphasized that it is bound by the Supreme Court's decision and cannot entertain arguments that challenge its correctness.
|
