2023 (9) TMI 638 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interpretation of statute - whether in presence of a specific provision, the general provision can have the sway or whether in presence of a specific provision in a tax statute, can a Court embank on interpretation by taking aid from the subsequent statute or not? - HELD THAT - By enacting the notification dated 08.02.1999 the State has clearly excluded bran from exemption as provided by Section 30-D. In terms of the specific provision, barn is exigible to sale tax @ 4% Where the tax statute is clear, unambiguous and direct, the court is not generally called upon to interpret such statute. Court has to act upon the literal provision only. As such, the observation, based on which the order of the First Appellate Court was reversed by the Tribunal, is un-called for and the interpretation made by the Tribunal is not only unwarranted in the present context but is also inappropriate. The impugned order is quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 24 of Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Rule 52A of Odisha Sales Tax Rules, 1947 regarding taxation of wheat bran and interpretation of Entry 30-D in tax-free list.

Summary:
1. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal challenging the tax liability on the sale of bran, holding it taxable @ 4% based on a government notification. The appellant's claim for deduction was disallowed, and taxable turnover was re-determined.

2. The dealer filed an appeal against the First Appellate Authority's order, which was allowed by the Tribunal, setting aside the previous order and holding the sale of wheat bran as tax-free under Entry 30-D during the assessment year.

3. The Tribunal reasoned that conditions restricting exemption should not defeat the purpose of the exemption, which aimed to benefit farmers by providing feed and fodder at an affordable price.

4. The Revenue contended that the specific provision of taxing bran @ 4% prevailed over the general tax-free provision under Entry 30-D, citing relevant entries in the Odisha Sales Tax Act.

5. The Court held that the subsequent amendment excluding bran from the tax exemption under Entry 30-D was clear and unambiguous, making bran taxable at 4%. The Tribunal's interpretation was deemed unwarranted, and the original order of the First Appellate Court was restored, quashing the Tribunal's order.

6. The petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded. An urgent certified copy of the order was directed to be granted upon application.