9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State for a period of five years with effect from the date of publication of the notification. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, felt that the said order accepting the claim of the appellant for exemption is not in accordance with the law. Therefore, issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the said order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. After considering the explanation of the assessee/dealer, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the G.O. was issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the APGST Act") and not under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the CST Act"). Therefore, the exemption granted under the said G.O. applies only to the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State and it cannot be inferred that the said exemption equally applies to the inter-State transactions. Further, the revisional authority referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 355 (SC), decided against the assessee observing as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be considered as general exemption granted under section 9(1) of the APGST Act. The learned counsel also referred to G.O. Ms. No. 1066, dated September 17, 1985 and also to G.O. Ms. No. 974 and contended that unless the exemption granted by the Government is in the nature of a general exemption the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The learned counsel also contended that unless exemption is granted by issuing a notification under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the CST Act, the appellant/dealer is not entitled for exemption in respect of the inter-State transactions. As the notification under G.O. Ms. No. 377 was issued only under section 9(1) of the APGST Act, the same would not entitle the dealer for exemption under the CST Act. 5.. The dispute in this appeal depends upon the answer to the question whether G.O. Ms. No. 377, Revenue dated May 2, 1991 is intended to grant general exemption under the provisions of the APGST Act and therefore extends the benefit of exemption to the inter-State sales also in terms of section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. 6.. For convenience the operative part of the G.O., is extracted here, which is as under: "In exercise of the powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, and under clause (b) that such exemption or reduction may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification. From the above it is clear that sub-section (1) of section 9 provides for exemption in respect of tax payable by any specified class of persons; whereas sub-section (2) provides the specified restrictions or conditions for the grant of exemption or reduction in the rates of tax. As noticed earlier, the Government Orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 377 intends to benefit specified class of persons, viz., roller flour mills, as provided under section 9(1)(ii) of the Act. There is no reference to any specified restrictions or conditions, upon compliance of which the roller flour mills are entitled to the exemption. No doubt, the exemption is available for a period of five years from the date of publication of the said notification. Such exemption for a limited period cannot be construed as a restricted or conditional exemption. 8.. From the above discussion it is clear that by the above referred notification, the State Government granted exemption to all the roller flour mills on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A perusal of the Explanation under the said subsection shows that it was explained what is meant by "exemption from tax generally" under the sales tax law of the appropriate State. It was explained negatively stating that a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, if under that law, the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. From the above consideration of the Explanation, it is clear that the exemption shall not be considered as a general exemption, if the exemption is granted only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions. In fact, the term referred "exempt from tax generally" was not defined under the provisions of the APGST Act. However, by considering the provisions of section 9 together with sub-section (2-A) of section 8 and the Explanation under it, goes to show that the specified conditions or restrictions are contemplated under clause (b) of section 9(2). If such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, on appeal, the Supreme Court accepted the claim of the dealer, as per its decision reported in Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432. But, however, on a review petition (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 355), filed by the department, the Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decision and held that the exemption that was granted is not a general exemption and therefore the dealer is not entitled to the benefit under sub-section (2-A) of section 8 of the CST Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is as under: "The exemption under the Government Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods or a class or category of goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them and their manufacture and sale within a particular period. For the purposes of the Government order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant; it may be any goods. It is concerned only with the industrial unit producing them and the period within which they are manufactured and sold. Can it be said in such a case that it is an instance where the sale is of goods, the sale or purchase of which is under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler flour mills only. By that it cannot be inferred that the said exemption is not of general nature, but is restricted or conditional. As referred in the explanation under sub-section (2-A) of section 8 of the CST Act, which explains what shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax laws of the appropriate State, if under that law, the sale or purchase is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions. As held earlier, the exemption granted under the impugned G.O., i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 377, is not subject to any conditions or circumstances, but to all roller flour mills in the State. Therefore, it should be deemed that the exemption is of general in nature as referred to in the explanation to section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. 11.. The learned Government Pleader referred to certain other G.Os., in support of his contention that G.O. Ms. No. 377 does not grant general exemption but only to the identified dealers and hence it should be treated as granting conditional exemption. We are unable to appreciate the said contention. The reference to other G.Os. by the learned Government Pleader is not relevant as the issue in question is to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
