2020 (2) TMI 364 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand for sales tax on sale of used cars and Trade Discount - stock transfer - wrong adjustment of Entry Tax - benefit of Notification No.79, CT R (B2), dated 23.03.2007 - clarification issued by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling vide clarification dated 25.10.2016 - HELD THAT - In the light of the clarification dated 25.10.2016 of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling issued under Section 48 A of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006, the issue relating to availability of benefit of G.O.Ms.No.79 CT R (B2) Dept. dated 23.3.2007 as amended by the of G.O.Ms.No.78 CT R (B2) Dept. dated 11.7.2011 would require reconsideration by the respondent. The issue relating valuation is answered in favour of the Petitioner. Thus, the demand of tax on Trade Discount in the impugned orders are quashed to that extent - As far as the issue relating to rate of tax is concerned, the same is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh order in the light of the clarification issued by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling vide its order dated 25.10.2016. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders for Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Taxation on Trade Discount, Taxation on Sales of Used Cars, Taxation on Stock Transfer, Wrong Adjustment of Entry Tax, Interpretation of Notifications regarding tax rates.

Analysis:

Challenge to Impugned Orders:
The Petitioner filed writ petitions seeking to quash two impugned orders passed by the Respondent for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011. The orders demanded tax on various transactions, including sales of used cars, stock transfers, and wrong adjustment of entry tax. The Petitioner contested the demands, leading to the impugned orders.

Taxation on Sales of Used Cars:
The issue revolved around the tax rate applicable to sales of used cars by the Petitioner. The Respondent relied on notifications to deny the benefit of a lower tax rate to the Petitioner, resulting in the demand for tax at 12.5%. The Petitioner cited a clarification supporting a lower tax rate, leading to a request for reconsideration by the Respondent.

Taxation on Trade Discount:
The Petitioner contested the inclusion of trade discount in the taxable turnover, arguing that it was an incentive from manufacturers and not part of the taxable value of cars sold. The Court, in a separate order, ruled in favor of the Petitioner, stating that trade discounts should not enhance the taxable turnover.

Stock Transfer and Entry Tax Adjustment:
The issue of stock transfer and wrong adjustment of entry tax was dropped for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 in the impugned orders. The demands related to these transactions were not confirmed, focusing instead on sales tax on used cars and trade discount.

Interpretation of Notifications:
The judgment highlighted conflicting notifications regarding tax rates for dealers in used cars. The Court emphasized the need for a combined reading of notifications to understand the specific circumstances under which sales of used cars are taxed, distinguishing them from general sales of cars.

Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner on the issue of trade discount, quashing the tax demands related to it. The matter of tax rates on sales of used cars was remitted back to the Respondent for fresh consideration based on a clarification. The judgment provided detailed directions for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of the tax rates in light of the clarification issued by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling.