9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to follow the same. The very fact that the Legislature even after the 2002 amendment has retained in Section 8(5), the words that “relate to the power of the State Government to grant total / partial exemption from tax payable u/s. 8(2)”, clearly show that the said amendment was not intended to affect the power of the State Governments to grant total / partial exemption from the tax payable in respect of the transactions covered u/s.8(2). The dealers, whether registered or unregistered, are entitled for the benefits of Notification, until the same is in force - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Tax Appeal Nos. 2342 of 2009, Tax Appeal Nos. 535, Tax Appeal Nos. 826, Tax Appeal Nos. 1203, Tax Appeal Nos. 2144 of 2010, Sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government has rescinded the notification on 31.3.2006? 4. In S.C.A. No.5975/2010 5980/2010, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application Nos.146/2007 147/2007 whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application of the petitioners on the issue of interpretation of effect of amendment dated 11.05.2002 under The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the CST Act ). 5. For the purpose of this judgment, Tax Appeal No.535/2010 is taken as the lead matter: 5.1 The assessee is an authorized distributor of Maruti cars and is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 as well as CST Act. The Government of Gujarat, vide powers conferred u/s.8(5) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments on record. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are taxable at the rate of 4% within the State of Gujarat. Vide Notification dated 18.05.1992 issued u/s.8(5), the State Government had resolved that if goods mentioned therein are sold in course of interstate trade and commerce, the rate of tax applicable u/s.8(2) would be 4%. Thus, even in absence of C Forms , the rate applicable u/s.8(2), by virtue of the above Notification, would be 4% and not 10%. The said Notification was holding field and was on the statute book till 30.03.2006. 7. For applying the rate of tax on interstate sales, two conditions have been laid down in Section 8. Section 8(1) lays down the condition that if sales are supported by C Forms , then conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otifications u/s.8(5) with respect to Section 8(2). Therefore, the State Governments can issue Notifications u/s.8(5) reducing the rate of tax with respect to transactions falling u/s.8(2) even after this amendment. 9. In any case, the amendment does not affect the Notifications issued prior to amendment. It is settled position of law that Notifications hold the field unless they are specifically rescinded and the Notification in question, has been rescinded w.e.f. 31.02.2006 and so, it holds the field till then. Hence, the authorities are bound to follow the same. 10. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the assessee to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prism Cement Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2013] 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
