2008 (2) TMI 600 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

exemption notification denied - Held that - High Court has failed to consider the question of law, which arose for determination before it in Sales Tax Revision Nos. 177-189 of 2007(1). As stated in this case, we are concerned with interpretation of various exemption notifications. We are not concerned with interpretation of circular No. 16/98 dated May 28, 1998. In this case, we are concerned with the words and expressions used in the notification(s). This point has been missed by the High Court in its impugned judgment. Therefore, on the scope and effect of each of the above exemption notifications, the matter needs to be remitted to the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. And if the assessee satisfies the terms and conditions mentioned in the exemption notification, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit thereunder notwithstanding the circular issued by the Board/Commissioner. This is on the principle mentioned hereinabove that such circular does not bind the assessee if the assessee demonstrates that it fulfils the conditions mentioned.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of various exemption notifications under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for assessment years 1982-83 to 1996-97.

Analysis:
The batch of civil appeals filed by the assessee challenged the common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dismissing revisions filed by the appellant-assessee at the admission stage. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Government Notifications S.R.O. No. 1003/91 and S.R.O. No. 1727/93 regarding the exemption provided for the manufacture of "goods" using rubber under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority initially denied the exemption, arguing that field latex and centrifuged latex were the same commodity. However, the first appellate authority held that centrifuged latex satisfied the definition of "goods" under S.R.O. No. 1003/91, allowing the concessional rate for the assessee.

The subsequent Government Notification S.R.O. No. 1727/93 replaced the earlier one, and the AO once again rejected the exemption claim, stating that both field latex and centrifuged latex were identical commodities. The Tribunal also upheld this view, considering them as distinct commodities based on a previous judgment. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, relied on the clarification by the Board/Commissioner that both commodities were the same under entry 110, denying the benefit of exemption/concession to the assessee. The Court highlighted the distinction between exigibility to tax and exemption/concession, emphasizing that different interpretations may apply in classification disputes and exemption notifications.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the specific question of law related to the interpretation of exemption notifications. It clarified that circulars/orders issued by the Commissioner are not binding on the assessee, and the assessee can claim exemption based on the terms of the notifications. The Court emphasized that the assessee is not bound by the Commissioner's directives and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The AO was directed to decide the claim for exemption solely based on the words and conditions in the exemption notifications, disregarding the High Court's observations.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals filed by the assessee, setting aside the High Court's judgments and remitting the matters to the AO for a fresh decision on the exemption claims in adherence to the legal provisions and terms of the exemption notifications.