9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable turnover (GTT) by adding Rs. 48,28,209.51 thereby resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 1,95,829 under Section 12 (4) of the OST Act for the Assessment Year 1997-98. 2. The questions of law that arise for determination in the present revision are as under: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, M.S. Wires and M.S. Rods are two different commercial commodities and the Tribunal is justified to hold that Petitioner is not entitled to exemption ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the consequential addition of purchase value of M.S.Rod with the gross turnover and taxable turnover in assessment is sustainable in law?" 3. The background facts are that the District Industries Center, Bhubaneswar (DIC) issued a certificate in favour of the Petitioner for eligibility for sales tax concession on raw materials, machinery, spare parts, packing materials and finished products under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1996 (IPR, 1996) (New Units) for the special claim mentioned in column 2, what was the finished products (M.S. Wire, Wire Nails and L-Hook/J. Hook) whereas column 4 of the title "particulars of machinary, spare parts, raw materials a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on the purchase of raw material, machinery, spare parts, packing materials and on sale of finished products 100% of the fixed capital investment made by it. This exemption was for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the commercial production. Relying on the decision in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2005] 5 RC 295 he submitted that it could not be presumed that the DIC had wrongly granted the petitioner exemption from paying sales tax subject to satisfaction of the conditions of such certificate. Mr. Sahoo also relied on the decision in SREI International Finance Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [2008] 16 VST 193 (Orissa) where, in similar circumstances, it was held that in mere admission of the liability by the Assessee on a wrong presumption would not disentitle the Assessee to relief. He submitted that the decision in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra) was wrongly distinguished by the Tribunal and that it squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. On his part, Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellants had suffered sales tax, the same could not be realized from the sale of wires." 13. Subsequently, a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra) addressed the question whether raw hides and skins were different from dressed hides and skins. It was held that although the appellants there had purchased raw hides and skins on payment of tax, 'it will be liable to payment of sales tax in respect of dressed hides and skins' and such levy will not fall foul of Section 15 of the CST Act as the two goods were different taxable commodities. It was held that it was a trite proposition that the same goods cannot be taxed more than once. In that process while discussing the decision in Telengana Steel Industries (supra) the Supreme Court in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra) noticed the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 8 SCR 217, where the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that "hides and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different as articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins". In para 13, the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. From th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly could not assume that the exemption was wrongly granted nor did he have the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the State Act to go behind the eligibility certificate and embark upon a fresh enquiry with regard to the appellant's eligibility for the grant of the benefits. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents-sales tax authorities is telling. It is said that the Sales Tax Department had decided to cancel the eligibility certificates for sales tax incentives. As we have said the eligibility certificates were issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce and could not be cancelled by the Sales Tax Authorities. [See in this connection Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 9 SCC." 18. It was then contended by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel that once the period of exemption came to an end on 31st March, 2000, the Petitioner had itself been contending to the contrary and on the basis of the decision in in Telengana Steel Industries (supra) was seeking to avoid payment of tax on the finished product viz., M.S. Wires since it had already paid sales tax on M.S. rods. 19. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, we are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
