2017 (6) TMI 305 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interpretation of any entry - filter fabrics - the competing entries are C I 17 and A 15 and whether the product falls in one or the other is a question of law - whether the product HDPE woven cloth which is used as filter fabric can be said to be an impregnated, coated, covered or laminated textile fabrics or textile articles of a kind suitable for industrial use or technical usage? - Held that - It is a settled position that the burden is on the department to prove that the product falling under particular sub heading is not covered by A.D.E. Act and, therefore, fails to qualify as one covered by Schedule Entry A 15 as fabrics described in A.D.E. Act - There is nothing to show that Filtered Fabric is a textile article of a kind suitable for use in a factory or an industry or an article of technology and, therefore, it is difficult to agree that the impugned product falls in a heading 54.06 covering fabrics in A.D.E. Act. Whether the impugned product is covered by Central Excise Head 54.06 being manufactured out of raw material covered by Central Excise Heading 54.04? - Held that - The Tribunal has considered the rival contentions and relied upon several decisions including the opinion of an expert tendered by the original appellant and the Tribunal has opined that it is not possible to accept the contentions of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that the impugned product is not obtained by either of the two processes referred to therein and that therefore cannot be considered as material described in heading 54.05 and, therefore, not covered by Central Excise Tariff Head 54.04. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner has rejected the prayer and has adjudicated upon that prayer in exercise of the appellate powers, under Section 55 of the Bombay Act? - Held that - once the orders are appealable by exercise of power under Section 55(6), the Tribunal has to pass the order as it deems just and proper. When despite making specific prayer, the said relief was not granted i.e. indirectly refused without giving reasons, it becomes the subject matter of Appeal, if such inaction on the part of Commissioner to consider the said relief has been challenged in Appeal. The opponent has taken a specific ground in the Appeal to grant prospective effect. The order further justifies the finding of the Tribunal in order dated 30th April, 2003 for granting prospective effect. Sales Tax Reference No. 31 of 2009 is returned unanswered.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of HDPE woven cloth under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Applicability of Central Excise Tariff Heading 54.06.
3. Grant of prospective effect by the Tribunal.
4. Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate beyond the specified transaction period.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of HDPE Woven Cloth:
The primary issue was whether the HDPE woven cloth, known as "Filter Fabrics," falls under Schedule Entry A-15 or C-I-17 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The opponent claimed that the HDPE cloth, being a man-made fabric, should be exempt from sales tax under Schedule Entry A-15. The determining authority, however, classified it under Schedule Entry C-I-17, making it liable to a 4% tax. The Tribunal, upon appeal, set aside the determination order and held that the HDPE cloth is covered under Entry A-15 except for the period from 1st October 1996 to 30th April 1998, during which it fell under Entry C-I-17 due to an amendment.

2. Applicability of Central Excise Tariff Heading 54.06:
The Tribunal had to determine if the HDPE woven cloth falls under Central Excise Tariff Heading 54.06, which pertains to synthetic filament yarn fabrics. The opponent argued that their product, being manufactured from raw materials under Heading 54.04, should be classified under 54.06. The Tribunal, after considering expert opinions and rival contentions, concluded that the HDPE woven cloth indeed meets the criteria for Heading 54.06.

3. Grant of Prospective Effect:
The Tribunal granted prospective effect to the determination from 1st October 1996 to 30th April 1998. The revenue contended that this was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as the Commissioner of Sales Tax did not explicitly grant this relief. The Tribunal reasoned that the appellant had sought prospective relief in their determination application, and the Commissioner's silence implied refusal. The Tribunal, exercising its appellate powers, deemed it just to grant prospective effect, considering the appellant had not collected taxes during the disputed period and was guided by prior determinations.

4. Tribunal's Jurisdiction Beyond Specified Transaction Period:
The revenue challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate beyond the specific transaction dates mentioned in the determination order. The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner had already addressed the legal position for periods before and after the specified transaction dates. Therefore, the Tribunal's competence to determine the classification for periods beyond the disputed transaction was not in question.

Conclusion:
The High Court found that the reference made by the Tribunal was unwarranted and unnecessary, as the Tribunal had already provided comprehensive reasoning in its order dated 30th April 2003. The questions referred to the High Court did not raise substantial questions of law but were rather issues of fact and discretion appropriately handled by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Sales Tax Reference No. 31 of 2009 was returned unanswered, with no order as to costs.