9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation. Had the State intended to confine the benefit granted to New Information Technology Industrial Units only upto 31.03.2013 as is contended by the respondents the language in para-4 would have been different, and it would have stated that for such units the period of incentive is only up to 31.03.2013, but that is not the case. Para-4 specifically says that total period of incentive in case of New Information Technology Industrial Units also would not exceed 6 years and 8 months - the specific language used in para-4 cannot be ignored on the basis of minutes of a meeting said to have been held between the Secretary (Information Technology) to the State Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Excise Taxation Commissioner on 31.05.2006 or the proposal placed before the Council of Ministers, as has been done by the Tribunal. Therefore, since the petitioners fall within the plain terms of the exemption granted in para-3 having commenced production on 31.03.2010, which is between 01.08.2006 and 31.03.2013 (as mentioned in para-3), they are entitled as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on dt. 05.08.2002, adding special conditions apart from provisions extending period for exemption of Central Sales Tax. 5) Pursuant to the extension of the Central Sales Tax exemption vide Notification dt. 29.07.2006, the petitioners industrial units came into production of UPS, Inverters, Stabilizers etc on 31.3.2010. 6) On 20.03.2014, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum- Assessing Authority, District Solan, passed an order of Scrutiny of Returns under Section 60 of the HP VAT Act, 2005, for the period from April, 2013 to January, 2014, denying exemption from Central Sales Tax to the petitioners industrial units. 7) Challenging the same, the petitioners filed Appeal nos.98 of 2015, 97 of 2015 99 of 2015, before the Additional Excise Taxation Commissioner-cum- Appellate Authority (South Zone), Shimla (in short the Appellate Authority ), on 19.05.2014. 8) The said appeals were disposed of on 15.07.2015, confirming the order of the Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, District Solan. 9) This order dt. 15.07.2015 of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioners on 22.12.2015 before the Himachal Pradesh Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 42(1) of the HP GST Act, 1968 to the extent relevant. 13) The said Notification issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is as under:- 2. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of subsection( 5) of section 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No.74 of 1956) the Government of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to direct that no tax under this Act shall be payable on the sale of goods manufactured by the existing and new Information Technology Industrial units situated in H.P., in the course of interstate trade or commerce for the period and subject to all the terms and conditions (including Explanation) as specified in this department notification No.EXN-F(9)2/99-III, dated 5th August, 2002 issued under section 42 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (Act No.24 of 1968). 14) The amendments brought to it by the later Notification on 29.07.2006, are as under:- 3. The Governor is further pleased to direct that subject to compliance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the incentives contained in para 2 of Notification No.EXN-F(9)-2/99-III(i), dated 5th August, 2002,as amended shall be avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption from Central Sales Tax was granted under the Notification dt. 29.07.2006 only upto 31.03.2013 in view of the language employed in Para- 3, as amended. 17) Petitioners contend it would be hard to believe that a unit which would come into existence after the issuance of the Notification dt. 29.07.2006, could be denied the exemption because it would take more than two years for the unit to establish itself, in which event, no unit would practically avail the benefit for 6 years and 8 months, as mentioned in Para-4 of the Notification dt. 29.07.2006, by 31.3.2013, and the very purpose of the incentive notification would be defeated. 18) The petitioners contend that the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the State Government intended to and has given the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Sales tax for a period of 6 years and 8 months for the existing units as well as for new units which have come into commercial production after 01.08.2006, and since the petitioners had come into existence on 31.03.2010 and had not availed full benefit of 6 years and 8 months, the Notice for Scrutiny of Return under Section 60 of H.P. VAT Act, 2005, could not have been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is benefit to those new Information Technology industrial units which were to come into production upto 31-03-2013 or till the period upto 30-11.2019 i.e. for 6 years and 8 months, as has been claimed by the appellants. There is no ambiguity in the approval sought by the Information Technology Department and it is absolutely clear from the perusal of its proposal that the incentive was to remain operative till 31-03-2013 only, even if a new Information Technology industrial unit commenced commercial production on 31-03-2013. Accordingly, the appellants who had commenced commercial production w.e.f. 31-03-2010 are entitled to the incentive of exemption from the payment of CENTRAL SALES TAX under the notification dated 29.07.2006, only up to 31-03-2013 i.e. for a period of 3 years and not up to 30-11-2016 for a period of 6 years and 8 months as has been claimed by them. Consideration by the Court 23) Admittedly Paras-3 4 of the amended notification, state as under:- 3. The Governor is further pleased to direct that subject to compliance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the incentives contained in para 2 of Notification No.EXN-F(9)-2/99-III( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed commercial production on or after 01.08.2006 upto 31.03.2013 would be entitled for the incentives mentioned in the Notification dt. 05.08.2002. 26) Since the petitioners units commenced commercial production on 31.03.2010 (between the dates 01.08.2006 upto 31.03.2013), they would be entitled to the incentives contained in the Notification dt. 05.08.2002. 27) We are also of the opinion that para-4 over-rides para-3 in view of the nonobstante clause contained therein; and para 4 indicates the period for which incentives would be enjoyed by both existing and new Information Technology Industrial Units, as mentioned therein, i.e. that such period will not exceed 6 years and 8 months. 28) Para-3, in our opinion, does not deal at all with the period for which the incentives can be enjoyed by eligible existing and new Information Technology Industrial Units. 29) The Supreme Court in Jugalkshore Saraf vs. Raw Cotton Company Limited AIR 1955 SC 376 declared that the cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning; if, however, such a reading le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period not exceeding 6 years and 8 months, i.e. up to 30.11.2016. 36) This apart, Section 60 authorizes the Assessing Authority to undertake scrutiny of returns filed for any return/tax period under Section 16 (3 4) and to interalia check correctness of application and calculation of rates of tax etc. 37) The Corresponding Rule 44 requires every appropriate Assessing Authority to scrutinize every return to check mistakes, and in case of mistake of less payment, the Assessing Authority can only serve a notice upon the dealer concerned to rectify the mistake and pay the tax paid less, or inform the dealer by sending a notice within one month of completion of scrutiny, in case of excess payment. 38) In both situations, only power of the Assessing Authority is to issue notice only and it cannot pass any order of the nature done by the Assessing Authority in the instant case. 39) We are also of the view that the statutory procedure of scrutiny of returns filed to check correctness of application an calculation of rates of tax, penalty and interest, and issuance of notice enacted under Section 60(2) if a mistake is detected, read with Rule 44 (1) (2), and the recommend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
