9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (9) TMI 1456 - ORISSA HIGH COURT ] , HDPE bags and HDPE woven sacks are not the same product. With there being no doubt that what was sold by the Petitioner was HDPE woven sacks, which is clearly specified as such in Entry 136, there is no scope to bring it within the ambit of Entry 129. There is no scope therefore for applying the rule of purposive construction . Here we are concerned with a taxing statute where the principle of strict construction has to be applied. In Hansraj Gordhandas v H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector [ 1968 (9) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT ] , the Supreme Court explained: It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Woven Sacks and correspondingly is the said product exigible to tax @ 4% or 8% respectively? 4. The background facts are that the Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)/Poly Propylene (PP) woven fabrics, bags, sacks and tapes and sells them both inside and outside the State of Odisha. 5. For the period 2003-04, the Petitioner filed its sales tax return declaring a gross turnover (GTO) of ₹ 1,53,05,081/- and a taxable turnover (TTO) of ₹ 1,48,45,465/-. 6. The case of the Petitioner is that the product being sold by it to the manufacturers of cement and fertilizers is used for packing, and therefore, the entry pertaining to packing materials , for which the rate of sales tax is 4%, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 2,36,95,365/- and levied tax @ 8% as per Entry 136 of List-C amounting to ₹ 18,80,454.48 and disallowed the set off of ₹ 2,69,022/- paid on the purchase of raw materials. Accordingly, the STO raised a demand of 9. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31st January 2006 of the STO, the Petitioner filed Appeal No.AA.22/BA/2006- 07 before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Taxes (JCST) [later re-designated as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (JCCT)], Balasore contending that the HDPE bags as well as sacks sold by it were being used for packing material and they were to be taxed @4% and not 8%. 10. By an order dated 27th May 2011, the JCST partly allowed the Petitioner's appeal by limiting the enhance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party- Sales Tax Department. 14. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the product sold by the Petitioner was HDPE woven sacks and that this was very different from HDPE bags. He submitted that without any supporting evidence, the Tribunal came to the above conclusion only because in an application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner had inadvertently stated that it was manufacturing HDPE woven sacks/ bags when there was no such statement anywhere in the memorandum of appeal. Further, according to him, the Tribunal committed a gross error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc capable of being closed at the mouth . The above decision of this Court was followed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. He accordingly submitted that no error had been committed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 16. The above submissions have been considered. It is seen that the invoices raised by the Petitioner on its purchasers was not entirely exhaustive of the description of the goods sold. In the present case, first the buyers placed purchase orders on the Petitioner in which they clearly described the product. Mr. Ray himself referred to the purchase order of Larsen and Toubro Limited, one of the purchasers of the Petitioner s products in which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs (Import) v. M/s. Dilip Kumar Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 held: There cannot be any implied concept either in identifying the subject of the tax or person liable to pay tax. That is why it is often said that subject is not to be taxed, unless the words of the statute unambiguously impose a tax on him, that one has to look merely at the words clearly stated and that there is no room for any intendment nor presumption as to tax. It is only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law to guide the interpreter to decide the liability to tax ignoring any amount of hardship and eschewing equity in taxation. Thus, we may emphatically reiterate that if in the event of ambiguity in a taxation liability statute, the benefit sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
