9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 476 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - rate of tax - High Mast Iron Pole - whether classified under the Residuary entry of Entry No.1 of Part VI of Schedule II or under Entry No.64 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act? - HELD THAT - The clause in Entry 30 i.e. as specified in Sec. 14 of the Central Salex Tax Act, 1956 except those mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule is disjuncted by a comma after the clause (viii), signifies that the clause in question covers entire Entry 30 and not alone clause (viii) - We are strengthened in our conclusion of this by another fact that Entry 30 alongwith Clause (i) to (viii) were incorporated in Schedule II of VAT Act 2002 from the very inception of Act of 2002; whereas, in the CST the Liquified petroleum Gas (LPG) for domestic use was inserted as clause (va) to Section 14 of 1956 Act with effect from 18.4.2006 by Act 21 of 2006. The reference to the provision of 1956 Act is not an error on the face of record. On the contrary the provisions of Section 14 of 1956 Act is expressly made applicable. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing review petition. 2. Interpretation of provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. Application of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, 2002. Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Review Petition The petitioners filed an application for the review of an order dated 19.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.6653/2011. The Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to approach the High Court for a review petition within eight weeks from the order date. The review petition was entertained on merit as it was filed within the specified time frame, leading to the disposal of the delay condonation application. Issue 2: Interpretation of Provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 The Writ Petition No.6653/2011 challenged the decision regarding the VAT on High Mast Iron Pole under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002. The order under review set aside the VAT charged at 13% under a specific entry, concluding that the product falls under a different entry attracting a 5% tax rate. The court referred to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, which incorporates the provision of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Despite contentions against the application of Section 14 of the 1956 Act, the court held that the clause in Entry 30 covers the entire provision of Section 14, not just a specific clause, as indicated by the comma placement after clause (viii). Issue 3: Application of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, 2002 The contention that Section 14 of the 1956 Act is not applicable to the entire Entry 30 but only to a specific clause was rejected. The court emphasized that the clause mentioning Section 14 is inclusive of the entire Entry 30, supported by the historical incorporation of Entry 30 along with clauses (i) to (viii) in the VAT Act 2002. The court affirmed that the reference to the 1956 Act is not erroneous and that Section 14 is explicitly made applicable to Entry 30. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay condonation, statutory interpretation, and the application of specific provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
|
