9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and the said turnover tax imposed at 0.25 per cent under notification dated March 30, 2000 is neither hit nor eclipsed nor cut by the subsequent notification dated September 17, 2001. Against assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 25-9-2008 - VINEET KOTHARI DR. , J. DR. VINEET KOTHARI J. The question of law which was framed for consideration in the present revision petition filed by the assessee is as under: Whether the exemption Notification No. 1490 dated September 17, 2001 S.O. No. 183 issued under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 exempting sale or purchase of all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn to which the rate of tax in respect thereof exceeds two per cent also covered the turnover tax imposed on the petitioner-assessee under section 13A of the RST Act, 1994 or the said exemption is limited to the individual sale or purchase of the specified commodities in the said notification? The revenue authorities, all three, concurrently held against the petitioner-assessee that the notification dated September 17, 2001 did not cover the turnover tax payable by the assessee under section 13A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any condition or with such condition as may be specified in the notification. The relevant notification providing for rate of turnover tax of 0.25 per cent dated March 30, 2000 and notification dated September 17, 2001 exempting the rate of tax on all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn exceeding two per cent subject to certain conditions, are also reproduced hereinunder: NOTIFICATIONS ON TURNOVER TAX Finance Department Tax Division Notifications Jaipur, March 30, 2000 S.O. 377. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (Rajasthan Act No. 22 of 1995), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby notifies that every registered dealer and every dealer who is liable to get himself registered under the Act and whose total turnover is not less than fifty lac rupees in a year, shall be liable to pay turnover tax under the said section, at the rate of 0.25 per cent. (F.4(1)FD/Tax Div./2000-301) By order of the Governor, V. SRINIVAS, deputy secretary to government. S. No. 1340 No.F.4(18)FD/Tax-Div./97-Part-III-92, Dated: September 17, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the provisions of the Act and 'turnover tax' has not been separately defined, therefore, 'turnover tax' is included within the definition of 'tax' under section 2(41) of the Act and is governed by the notification dated September 17, 2001. (c) That since section 13A(2) of the Act stipulates that no turnover tax shall be payable in relation to sale or purchase of exempted goods, therefore, the exemption over two per cent rate of tax granted under the notification dated September 17, 2001 cannot be indirectly taken away by imposition of turnover tax under section 13A of the Act. (e) That since the honourable Supreme Court in S. Kodar v. State of Kerala [1974] 34 STC 73 as well as this court in Merta Trade and Industries v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 127 STC 524 (Raj); [2002] 13 STO 462 held that turnover tax is nothing but tax on purchase or sale of goods and is as good as additional rate of tax on such purchase or sale of the goods, therefore, the exemption over two per cent of rate of tax under notification dated September 17, 2001, would exempt the assessee from levy of turnover tax also. (f) That the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction...'. The learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submitted that exemption under notification dated September 17, 2001 cannot be narrowly construed and would also cover exemption from turnover tax. These submissions are opposed by Mr. V.K. Mathur appearing with Mr. Rishab Sancheti in the following manner: (a) That the notification dated September 17, 2001 exempts only individual transactions of sale or purchase of all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn from the rate of tax exceeding two per cent subject to condition of the same being used as raw material for manufacture of fabrics in the State and subject to further condition of manufacturer giving certificate in prescribed form appended in the said notification and, therefore, the same does not include the turnover tax leviable on the gross annual turnover of the assessee in the year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in sub-section (2) of section 13A has to be made, viz., turnover of exempted goods, turnover of goods sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, etc. The levy of turnover tax is also subject to restrictions imposed under article 286 of the Constitution of India and sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as held by this court in Merta Trade and Industries' case [2002] 127 STC 524; [2002] 13 STO 462 but the question is, can rate of turnover tax prescribed in the notification dated March 30, 2000 at 0.25 per cent on the taxable turnover as determined under section 13A of the Act exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, be further slashed down by implied exemption by a subsequent notification about the rate of tax in relation to sale or purchase of all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn under notification dated September 17, 2001. The answer has to be in the negative. The reason is that notification dated September 17, 2001, in fact, reduced the rate of tax applicable on the said commodity to two per cent or, in other words, granted exemption from rate of tax in excess of two per cent on the individual transaction of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4, which is referred to as 'a tax' and the other under section 4AAA, which is referred to as 'a turnover tax'. The difference in nomenclature is consistently maintained in those as well as other sections of the Act. Under section 4AA, which provides for exemption, the empowerment to notify that no tax shall be payable relates to 'tax' levied under section 4. Therefore, Notification No. 1809/F.T. dated April 1, 1976, issued under section 4AA obviously refers to the tax under section 4 and not to 'turnover tax' imposed under section 4AAA. A small-scale industrial unit is not entitled to exemption from payment of turnover tax during the period of the validity of the eligibility certificate by virtue of the notification issued under section 4AA. Kejriwal Electronics Private Limited Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1991] 81 STC 20 (WBTT)[FB] approved. ABN Food Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1990] 77 STC 339 (Cal) overruled. Decision of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Sun Oil Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1994] 93 STC 24 affirmed. Another judgment which was relied upon by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
