9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the law prevailing in that AY and if for such AY the Petitioner fulfilled the condition for getting tax exemption, then such benefit could not be denied to it - 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. The consequential addition of the purchase value of M.S. Rods in the gross turnover and tax turnover of the Petitioner in the assessment order in question cannot be justified and is hereby set aside. Revision petition disposed off. - STREV No. 28 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2021 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR AND JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo Senior Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sunil Mishra Additional Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. This revision petition under Section 24(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act) arises from a judgment dated 20th December, 2005 passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on could be claimed for the tax already paid on it. Thus, the STO determined that the tax leviable would be @ 4% on the GTT, and that the corresponding tax due would be rounded as ₹ 1,95,829/-. In arriving to the above conclusion, the STO placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Telengana Steel Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 93 STC 187 (SC). 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the ACST, Bhubaneswar who again referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Telengana Steel Industries (supra) to justify the order of the STO. The aforementioned order was further affirmed by the Tribunal by dismissing the Petitioner's appeal S.A. No.523 of 2001-02 6. The plea of the Petitioner that a judgment of the larger Bench in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. v. State of Tamilnadu, (1998) 108 STC 258 (SC) had distinguished the judgment in Telengana Steel Industries (supra), was negative by the Tribunal on the ground that it did not to help the case of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed. 7. This Court has heard the submission of Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Since considerable reliance has been placed by both sides on the decision in Telengana Steel Industries (supra) and the subsequent decision in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra), the Court takes up the detailed examination of the said two decisions first. 11. In Telengana Steel Industries (supra), a Bench of two learned Judges of the Supreme Court considered the question whether iron wires were separate commercial goods from wire rods from which they were produced and were therefore exigible to a single point tax even if the wire rods, when purchased had suffered sales tax. This was answered in the negative by holding that iron wires could not be considered to be a separate taxable commodity and, if wire rods which were purchased by the Petitioner had suffered sales tax, the same could not be realised from the sale of wires. 12. It requires to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Telengana Steel Industries (supra) In Telengana Steel Industries (supra) observed that it did not propose to decide whether iron wires are separate commercial goods from iron rods from which they were produced, by trying to answer whether they are one commercial commodity or separate. It noted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Bench in Hajee Abdul Shukoor's case [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC) : [1964] 8 SCR 217. (emphasis supplied) 14. It was further observed by the Supreme Court in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra) that Section 14 of the CST Act was not a taxing provision but merely classified different commodities under the same species under one entry. It was observed: 'merely because different goods or commodities are listed together in the same sub-heading or sub-items in Section 14 cannot mean that they are regarded as one and the same item. 15. Therefore, it is clear that the subsequent decision of the three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.A. K. Anwar and Co. (supra) had to prevail over the earlier two Judge Bench decision in Telengana Steel Industries (supra). 16. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal has sought to distinguish K.A.K. Anwar and Co. (supra) on a rather strange reasoning that it was no way helpful to the dealer . This is no way to distinguish a binding judgment of the larger Bench of Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal fell in error in proceeding to rely exclusively on the decision in Telengana Steel Industries (supra). 17. Mr. Sahoo is right in cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if for such AY the Petitioner fulfilled the condition for getting tax exemption, then such benefit could not be denied to it. Indeed, this Court in SREI International Finance Ltd. (supra) observed thus: Liability to pay tax has always to be imposed by law: it cannot be imposed on admission. Article 265 of the Constitution is very clear on this point. 20. As far as the decisions cited by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel are concerned, they would be relevant if the question was whether drawing of M.S. Wires from M.S. Rods amounts to manufacture. Here that is not the question. The only question is whether for the AY in question viz., 1997-98 the Petitioner's products i.e. M.S. Wires which is admittedly manufactured from M.S. Rods would be amenable to sales tax exemption in terms of the certificate dated 26th November, 1996 issued by the DIC, Bhubaneswar subject to fulfilling the conditions therein. The answer to that question, in our considered view, has to be in the affirmative. 21. Consequently, the orders passed by the STO, the ACST and the Tribunal are accordingly set aside. 22. The amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court pursuant to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
