9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.) LTD. (AND OTHER APPEALS) [ 1992 (1) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT] and what has been cited are the judgements STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS SARVOTAM VEGETABLES PRODUCTS (AND OTHER APPEALS) [ 1996 (4) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT] and several other judgments. However, and fortuitously for the assessee in that case, the High Court has been persuaded to make distinction between the applicability of a Section 8(5) Notification in the case of a transaction under Section 8(1) of the CST Act vis-a-vis a transaction under Section 8(2) of the CST Act. In the former, the rate of tax stipulated is qua the registered dealer, whereas in the latter, the rate of tax stipulated is qua the unregistered dealer. In our respectful opinion, this distinction is one without a difference as Section 8(5) makes no distinction between its applicability qua a situation falling either in Section 8(1) or 8(2), unless the Notification under Section 8(5) itself makes such distinction, stipulating that the reduced rate is applicable only on transactions falling either under Section 8(1) or 8(2). In the Notification in question, it is an omnibus reduction of rate and there is no denial of rate to any specific cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r during the relevant year. 5. The impugned assessment has come to be completed bringing to tax the turnover at the rate of 10%, as the assessing officer was of the view that the petitioner is entitled only to the rate of tax stipulated under the Schedule read with Section 8(4) of the CST Act. Since no 'C' forms had been filed by the petitioner, the assessing authority has proceeded to bring to tax the turnover at the rate of 10%. 6. The submissions made by Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Notification would run in parallel with the stipulations under the relevant schedules. Relying on the judgments in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax V. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. (85 STC 106) and Sri Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited V. State of Tamil Nadu (109 STC 205), he would point out that the assessing authority has erred in imposing the condition relating to 'C' form over and above what has been contained in the Notification. In any event, there is no basis for the levy of tax at the rate of 10%. 7. Per contra, Mr.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate would defend the impugned order relying on the judgment of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-Section (5) to have complied with the provisions of Section 8(4). 14. The above interpretation is clear from a plain reading of sub- Sections (4) and (5) of Section 8. In addition, useful reference may be made to the judgment of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. (supra). 15. In that case, the appeals filed by the revenue before the Supreme Court contested orders of the Kerala High Court. The respondents/assessees in that matter were dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and engaged in the business of coir. They had contested the levy of additional sales tax taking the benefit of certain Notifications that they claimed had been issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act. 16. The provisions of Section 8 were examined in detail and the Supreme Court has returned the conclusion that Section 8(5) is a self-contained code that does not depend on any of the other provisions of Section 8 for its sustenance. Hence any benefit either by way of Circular or Notification under Section 8(5) would stand alone and the benefit granted thereunder would not depend on the satisfaction/compliance of any of the other provisions of the Act, inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We are unable to see anything in this judgment to support the contention of the respondents-assessees that even in a case which is not covered by any notification under section 8(5) of the CST Act increase in the rate of tax under the local act will not have any effect on the applicability of Section 8(2)(b) and 8(2-A) of the CST Act. Further, for enhancing the rate notified under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act no reliance can be placed on section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. However, while agreeing with the view of the learned single Judge the Division Bench on appeal in the case of Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax (supra) made certain further observation which in a way supported the contention of the assessees. That passage reads as follows: We are also of the view, that even in cases where tax is exigible under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax for the inter-State sales, the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1978), has no application. As stated already, in cases where the tax is payable under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, what is crucial or relevant is to ascertain, the appropriate sales ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 8(5) of the CST Act had been refused on the ground that the parties were unregistered dealers. 19. In that case as well, the assessee has unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Bench the judgment in the case of Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. (supra) and what has been cited are the judgements Sarvotam Vegetables Products (supra) and several other judgments. However, and fortuitously for the assessee in that case, the High Court has been persuaded to make distinction between the applicability of a Section 8(5) Notification in the case of a transaction under Section 8(1) of the CST Act vis-a-vis a transaction under Section 8(2) of the CST Act. 20. In the former, the rate of tax stipulated is qua the registered dealer, whereas in the latter, the rate of tax stipulated is qua the unregistered dealer. In our respectful opinion, this distinction is one without a difference as Section 8(5) makes no distinction between its applicability qua a situation falling either in Section 8(1) or 8(2), unless the Notification under Section 8(5) itself makes such distinction, stipulating that the reduced rate is applicable only on transactions falling either under Section 8(1) or 8(2). In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
