2016 (4) TMI 785 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax liability - Section 16 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - Ex-parte order passed - Sale of confiscated goods imported in contravention of Customs laws - Petitioner neither filed return nor produced books of accounts as required under Section 16(1) and 17(2) ibid in spite of notice - Held that - in view of various Hon ble Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with IInd Explanation and, thus, it is exigible to the sales tax. Whether the petitioner is liable to penalty or interest on account of non-filing of return etc. needs to be re-decided by the Assessing Authority keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is Custom Department of the Government of India and there could be ambiguity in understanding the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Therefore, the tax is levied and matter remitted for determining question of penalty and interest. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the petitioner for payment of sales tax on confiscated goods.
2. Interpretation of Article 285 of the Constitution of India regarding exemption of Union property from State taxation.
3. Application of Article 289 of the Constitution of India to indirect taxes like customs duty, excise duty, and sales tax.
4. Classification of the petitioner as a "dealer" under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Issue 1: Liability for Sales Tax
The judgment addressed the dispute over the petitioner's liability for sales tax on confiscated goods sold through public auction. The Customs Department argued that the petitioner, registered as a dealer, was obligated to pay sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The petitioner contended that as the goods were property of the Union of India, they were exempt from State taxes under Article 285 of the Constitution.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Article 285
The Court analyzed Article 285 of the Constitution, which exempts Union property from State taxation unless Parliament provides otherwise. The petitioner invoked this provision to argue against the imposition of sales tax on confiscated goods. The Court noted the distinction between direct and indirect taxes on Union property, emphasizing that indirect taxes like sales tax were not covered by Article 285.

Issue 3: Application of Article 289
The judgment discussed Article 289 of the Constitution, which restricts the Union from taxing State property and income. Previous Supreme Court decisions clarified that Article 289 did not apply to indirect taxes such as customs duty and sales tax. The Court cited relevant cases to establish that duties of excise and customs were not taxes on property or income but on the manufacture or sale of goods.

Issue 4: Classification as a "Dealer"
The Court examined whether the petitioner qualified as a "dealer" under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, based on its auctioning of confiscated goods. Relying on precedents and legal interpretations, the Court determined that the petitioner fell under the definition of a dealer and was subject to sales tax. However, the Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority to decide on penalties and interest due to potential ambiguity in applying the Act to a government entity like the Customs Department.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the levy of sales tax on confiscated goods, but directed a reassessment of penalties and interest by the Assessing Authority. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, providing clarity on the petitioner's tax liability and the application of constitutional provisions to indirect taxes.