9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1099 - SCH - VAT and Sales TaxExemption from U.P. Trade Tax Act - PVC coated cotton fabrics - to be included in Entry 53 or under Chapter 59.03? - HELD THAT - This Court has independently considered the reasoning of the High Court and concurs with it. The reliance placed by the appellant on the classification in the Central Excise Tariff, is of little consequence since the terminology used in Chapter 59 under the relevant heading is different. Chapter 59 is far more nuanced than Entry 53 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. In these circumstances, having regard to the express terms of Item 53 which is in question in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no cause for interference has been shown. SLP dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether PVC coated cotton fabrics are exempted from U.P. Trade Tax Act. Analysis: The Supreme Court considered the issue of exemption of PVC coated cotton fabrics from U.P. Trade Tax Act. The appellant argued that their product, known as Cotton Coated Fabric (CCF) or PVC cloth, should not be taxed under Entry 53 of the Act. The appellant relied on the classification in the Central Excise Tariff Act, Chapter 59.03, to support their contention that their product should not fall under the taxed category. However, the Revenue rejected the appellant's argument based on a previous decision of the High Court in a similar case. The High Court had previously held that PVC fabric, including leather cloth, is considered textile and thus subject to taxation. The Supreme Court noted the High Court's reasoning and concurred with it, emphasizing that the terminology used in Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act differs significantly from Entry 53 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Supreme Court further highlighted that the specific wording of Entry 53 in the U.P. Trade Tax Act is crucial in determining the tax liability of PVC coated cotton fabrics. Despite the appellant's reliance on the Central Excise Tariff classification, the Court found no valid reason to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting tax laws based on the explicit language and provisions of the relevant statutes, emphasizing the need for consistency and clarity in tax assessments and classifications.
|
