2014 (4) TMI 365 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entitlement for Deduction Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the exemption from furnishing C forms cannot be granted by application u/Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 r/w Section 9(2) of the CST, Act 1956 Interpretation of statute - Held that - Held that - Judgemnt in Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & State of Mysore Versus Guldas Narasappa Thimmaiah Oil Mills 1975 (2) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - Whilst substantive right and liabilities are to be located within the main enactment, i.e. the Central Sales Tax, the procedure to be followed for assessment, collection of duty etc. is dictated by the local, prevailing State law If penalty is not specifically provided in regard to certain matters, the local enactment cannot be relied upon for that purpose Relying upon Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr, 1970 (4) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - If in the absence of interest under CST, a local law could not be enforced through Section 9(2) - If one were to keep this aspect in mind, then Orissa Cement (supra), on the other, suggests that rebate for timely payment provided for in the State law can be extended by virtue of Section 9(2) as it is intrinsically linked to the concept of tax collection which falls properly within Section 9(2) - The condition for grant of benefit, i.e., the benefit u/s 5(3) and 5(4), subject to production of prescribed declarations, is engrafted within the main statute, i.e. Central Sales Tax. Relying upon Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company 1965 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - SC even went to the extent of saying that occurrence of events such as fires cannot be covered expressly by Section 5 and that in the absence of any Rules under the CST Act, local State laws cannot be used to give relief - To take the logic further, permitting such relief in the absence of statutory authorisation would not only transgress the extent of jurisdiction allowed to State authorities by Section 9(2) to lead to diverse and probably contradictory results - In the administration of a concededly Central law, such as the Central Sales Tax Act, despite the statutory injunction contained in Section 5(3) and 5(4), each State of the Union would be free to carve-out myriad exceptions that would only undermine the object of the rule embodied in the substantive provisions - Therefore, Tribunal order does not call for any interference Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 is a substantive provision.
2. Whether the exemption from furnishing 'C' forms can be granted under Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Substantive Nature of Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975:

The primary issue was whether Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 is a substantive provision. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) held that Rule 7(3) embodies substantive law rather than a procedural aspect. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Khemka and Co. (Agencies) Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Nav Bharat Enterprises Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer to conclude that proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST) and the Local Act are independent in terms of liability, assessment, and procedure for imposing tax. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 7(3) runs contrary to the provisions of the CST Act, which mandates the furnishing of 'C' forms for claiming exemptions.

2. Exemption from Furnishing 'C' Forms:

The second issue was whether the exemption from furnishing 'C' forms can be granted under Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956. The assessees argued that the CST scheme relies on state local laws for the machinery to enforce its policy, and Rule 7(3) should be applied uniformly. They contended that the CST's policy was to rely on state mechanisms for assessment and recovery, and Rule 7(3) was procedural, not substantive. The assessees cited various Supreme Court decisions to support their argument that procedural provisions of state laws could be utilized for CST assessments.

The revenue, on the other hand, argued that Section 5(2) of the CST Act outlines the conditions for exemption, which are substantive and cannot be diluted by state rules. They relied on Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which held that exemption provisions must be strictly construed and that the CST Act's substantive provisions cannot be overridden by state rules.

Analysis and Findings:

The court analyzed the relevant provisions, including Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules and Section 5 of the CST Act. It noted that Section 9(2) of the CST Act allows state authorities to assess and collect CST as if it were a state tax, but substantive provisions of the CST Act, such as the requirement to furnish 'C' forms, cannot be overridden by state rules. The court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Khemka & Co., which emphasized that the CST Act is a self-contained code, and state authorities act as agents of the central government for CST purposes.

The court concluded that Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules is procedural and cannot override the substantive provisions of the CST Act. It held that the requirement to furnish 'C' forms for claiming exemptions under the CST Act is substantive and must be strictly adhered to. The court rejected the assessees' argument that state procedural rules could be used to grant exemptions from furnishing 'C' forms under the CST Act.

Conclusion:

The court answered the questions of law in favor of the revenue and against the assessees. It upheld the Tribunal's order, concluding that Rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules is procedural and does not grant exemption from furnishing 'C' forms under the CST Act. The references were accordingly answered, affirming the substantive nature of the CST Act's provisions and the necessity of complying with them for claiming exemptions.