2014 (5) TMI 684 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rate of Tax - Entitlement to concessional rate of tax u/s 3(3) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 Classification of Interpretation of Statute - Held that - A reading of Section 3(3) of the Act shows that it opens with a non-obstante clause, but subject to the provisions of Sub Section (1), concessional rate of tax at 3% is available to sale of any goods - There is nothing to read from Section 3(3) that the Legislature intended to restrict the applicability of the provision to the sale of only those goods falling under the First Schedule for the purpose of use in the manufacture of goods - A reading of Section 3(3) shows that the tax payable by a dealer in respect of sale of any goods including consumables, packing materials and labels other than capital goods for use in the manufacture and assembling, packing and labelling in connection with such manufacture for sale of the goods falling under the First Schedule other than the excluded goods, inside the State, would qualify for concessional levy. Going by Section 3(3), there is no hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax as given u/s 3(3) of the Act - The relevancy or otherwise of the Sixth Schedule, hence, loses its significance in the matter of considering the claim for concession - Even though timber was brought under the Sixth Schedule during the assessment year 1994-95, for the reasons already stated, such amendment does not stand in the way of considering the claim of the assessee; that even assuming for a moment that veneer is a timber falling under the Sixth Schedule, in the absence of any restriction to be read in the first part of Section 3(3) viz., in respect of sale of any goods , there is no hesitation in allowing the contention of the assessee It is held that the goods dealt with by the assessee could not be called as timber - A mere look at the material produced before us shows that it is only a scrapped material which is under commercial parlance, called veneer to be used at the top of the plywood that had been sold by the assessee - Given the fact that the timber and veneer are commercially a different goods and that the entry in the Sixth Schedule contemplates timber including sized timber, but excluding fire wood , the item dealt with by the assessee would not fall either under timber or sized timber - Revision stands allowed- Consequently, connected TCMP is closed Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim concessional levy under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment year 1994-95?
2. Whether veneer and timber can be considered the same for taxation purposes under the VI Schedule?

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer in Veneers timber and timber, claimed concessional levy under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Assessing Authority and subsequent appellate bodies rejected the claim, considering veneer and timber as one. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The petitioner contended that veneer and timber are distinct materials used differently in plywood manufacturing. The relevant provision of Section 3(3) allowed concessional levy for goods used in manufacturing specific items from the First Schedule. The Court held that the VI Schedule's inclusion did not impact the petitioner's claim under Section 3(3) for the assessment year 1994-95.

2. The Court analyzed the definitions and commercial usage of veneer and timber. It noted that the VI Schedule's amendments did not alter the applicability of concessional levy under Section 3(3). The Court emphasized that the Act's provisions focused on the type of goods used in manufacturing, not their specific classification under different schedules. The Court concluded that the petitioner's items did not fall under the VI Schedule's definition of timber, supporting the claim for concessional levy under Section 3(3).

3. The Court highlighted the distinction between the VI Schedule's provisions and the conditions for concessional levy under Section 3(3). It clarified that the Act's intent was to provide a reduced tax rate for goods used in manufacturing specific items, irrespective of their classification under different schedules. The Court's detailed analysis upheld the petitioner's entitlement to claim concessional levy under Section 3(3) for the relevant assessment year, emphasizing the Act's language and purpose.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the Tax Case Revision, ruling in favor of the petitioner's claim for concessional levy under Section 3(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1994-95. The judgment emphasized the Act's provisions, the distinct nature of veneer and timber, and the legislative intent behind concessional tax rates for goods used in manufacturing specific items.