9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i and Village Industries Act, 1957 (Kerala Act 9 of 1957). The respondent-assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, the Act ) for the assessment year 1984-85. He claimed exemption from payment of sales tax on the turnover of Gopuram brand bar soap which is a product of village industries, manufactured by an institution recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission constituted under the Central Act 61 of 1956. However, the assessee was not an institution recognised under the above Act. He is a dealer of various articles including Gopuram brand bar soap . The assessment under the Act was originally completed granting exemption from payment of sales tax on the sales turnover of Gopuram brand bar soap. Later, the assessing authority reopened the assessment under section 19 of the Act holding that since the assessee was not a recognised institution, he is not entitled to the exemption. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification S.R.O. No. 287/64 as under the notification, exemption is available for products of village industries . 2.. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexempted class of tax-payers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. But, counsel for the assessee pleaded for a liberal construction so as to get the full benefit. It is a well-known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. As held by the apex Court in Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (1992) 61 ELT 332, while interpreting an exemption notification, a reasonable construction which gives effect to true intent and purpose of the provision has to be adopted without doing violence to the language used in the notification. 4.. In Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC); (1990) 4 SCC 258, apex Court gave guidelines regarding interpretation of exemption notification. At paragraph 4 of the judgment it was observed as follows: 4. Entitlement of exemption depends on construction of the expression 'any factory commencing production' used in the table extracted above. Literally exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. Fiscally it may assume varying shapes, specially, in a growing economy. For instance tax holiday to new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of village industries is given to the selling dealer provided he is a recognised dealer as indicated in the notification. Products of village industries are not exempted from the levy of tax. Notification under question is not given exemption to the commodity as such. In ordinary usage and is conjunctive and or is disjunctive. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition at page 232). Exemption is available if the commodities called village products manufactured by a recognised manufacturer are sold by himself or by any other dealer who is recognised. The words and/or used in the context only provides that the recognised dealer himself need not manufacture the products and even if the village products are manufactured by another institution or person recognised, he will get benefit of exemption. If recognised manufacturer sells the products by himself also exemption is available. It appears that a third alternative is not intended. 6.. Even though wordings in the notification are creating some confusion and ambiguity, considering the object of the notification, for getting the benefits, it is reasonable to assume that the specified goods in the notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Panalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221. Equal treatment should be given to all assessees and Government cannot discriminate between assessees. We are not holding that merely because appeal was not filed in one case, Government is prevented from filing an appeal in another case as rule of estoppel is not applicable in the taxation matters generally. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Person In-Charge, Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada [2004] 135 STC 258 (SC); [2004] 2 RC 495; (2004) 2 Scale 77, apex Court after quoting its earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683, held as follows: In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683, a three-Judge Bench had expressly repelled such a contention and had held that non-filing of an appeal in one matter would not act as a bar against the State in filing appeal in another matter where a similar point may be involved. The court ruled as under: 'The circumstance of the non-filing of the appeals by the State in some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by the Supreme Court in some other similar matters by itself, cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
