w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Sales Tax v/s Upper Doab, Sugar Mills Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29191GJ1985PTC007880

Company & Directors' Information:- S M SUGAR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51299DL1999PTC098109

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SALES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011644

Company & Directors' Information:- SUGAR CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15424WB1954PTC000884

Company & Directors' Information:- S M SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL1993PTC053285

    Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 1202, 1238 & 1320 of 1989, 375 & 454 of 1990

    Decided On, 19 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

    For the Appellant: Ashok Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Bharat Ji Agarwal, M. Manglik, P. Agarwal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. These revisions filed u/s 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Trade Tax Act, 1948) have been placed before this Division Bench on a reference made by learned Single Judge hearing the revision vide its order dated 10.5.1999 doubting the correctness of a judgment of learned Single Judge reported in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST 1987 U.P.T.C. 1034 and other three other judgments following the above judgment. The facts giving rise to the above mentioned reference need to be noted first. It shall be sufficient to note the facts giving rise to Sales Tax Revision No. 1238 of 1989 for deciding all these cases. The assessee M/s. Upper Doab, Sugar Mills Ltd. is a manufacturer of denatured spirit, rectified spirit and foreign liquor. The assessee in the Assessment Year 1974-75 disclosed taxable turnover of Rs. 19,72,183/- under the Central Sales Tax Act and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,90,24/-. The Assessing Authority accepted the book version and created a tax liability of Rs. 65,210/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. The assessee before the appellate authority claimed that denatured spirit and rectified spirit are alcohol which is exempted u/s 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as '1948 Act') hence, no tax can be imposed. It was submitted before the appellate authority that since tax is exempted under the 1948 Act, there is no liability to pay any central sales Lax. The appeal was dismissed on 18.7.1980 against which the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that by virtue of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 Section 4 of the 1948 Act has been amended and w.e.f. 2.5.1974 rectified spirit and denatured spirit were unconditionally exempted from tax hence, there was no liability to pay central sales tax also. The Tribunal relying on its earlier judgment in M/s. Swaroop Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. accepted the submission of the assessee and deleted the central sales tax on rectified spirit and denatured spirit. Against the order dated 27.7.1989, passed by the Tribunal, the revision No. 1238 of 1989 has been filed by the Commissioner Sales Tax. In the revision challenging the order of the Tribunal, grounds have been taken that during the relevant year rectified spirit was taxable under the United Provinces Sales of (Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol) Taxation Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as T939 Act') although it was exempted under the 1948 Act hence, central sales tax was payable. The ground has further been taken that assessee himself has accepted the leviability of central sales tax on his turnover hence, he having himself admitted the tax liability and having filled 'C Form', he should not be allowed to contest the taxability on rectified spirit. The revision came for hearing before a learned Single Judge before whom the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein learned Single Judge of this Court has held that there is no liability of central sales tax according to Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as T956 Act'). Learned Single Judge (Justice M.C. Agarwal) hearing the revision was of the view that learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 8(2A) of the 1956 Act. Learned Single Judge hearing the revision took the view that alcohol being taxable under the 1939 Act, there shall be liability of central sales tax in accordance with Section 8(2A) of the 1956 Act. Doubting the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and three other judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge has referred the matter for constituting a Larger Bench for deciding these cases.

2. We have heard Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal for the assessee.

3. Before we note and consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases, it is necessary to refer the necessary constitutional and statutory provisions governing the field. The provincial Legislature in exercise of powers u/s 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 enacted an Act namely; the United Provinces Sales of (Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol) Taxation Act, 1939 to provide for the levy of a tax on the retail sales of motor spirit. The provincial Legislature again enacted the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948) to provide for levy of a tax on the sales or purchase of goods in Uttar Pradesh. Both the aforesaid enactments were enacted by the provincial Legislature exercising the legislative powers given in Section 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935 read with Entry 48A of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. List II i.e. Provincial Legislative List contained Entry 48 which is to the following effect:

48. Taxes on the sale of goods and on advertisements.

4. Section 2 of the 1948 Act contains definition of various terms. Section 3 provides for Liability to tax under the Act. Section 3A provides for Rate of tax. Section 4 provides for exemption from tax. Section 3 was a charging Section of 1939 Act. By U.P. Act No. 12 of 1974, amendments were made in 1939 Act. The definition of 'alcohol' was inserted by Section 2(aaaa) which was to the following effect:

(aaaa) "Alcohol" means Ethyl Alcohol not being alcoholic liquor for human consumption and includes rectified spirit, denatured spirit and absolute alcohol.

5. Section 3(1)(c) provides for levy of tax on purchase of alcohol. Section 3(1)(c) is as follows:

there shall be levied at the point of first purchase of alcohol other than alcoholic liquor for human consumption in the State a tax at the rate of eight paise per litre, and such tax shall be collected and paid in the prescribed manner to the State Government.

6. By Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 following amendments were made in Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948:

4. Exemption from tax. No tax under this Act shall be payable on-

(a) the sale of water, milk, salt, newspaper, motor spirit or any other goods which the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette exempt, or

(b) the sale or purchase of any goods by the All India Spinners Association or Gandhi Ashram, Meerut and their branches, or by such other persons or class of persons as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, exempt:

Provided that while granting any exemption under Clause (a) or clause (b), the State Government may impose such conditions including the condition of payment of such fees, if any, not exceeding eight thousand rupees annually, as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Gazette.

Explanation. - In this section, the expression-

(a) 'water does not include mineral water, aerated water, tonic water, distilled water or scented water;

(b) 'milk' does not include condensed milk, milk powder or baby milk;

7. The above amendments in Section 4 were deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. May 2, 1974. Thus, by virtue of amendments made by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1975 and U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975, rectified spirit and denatured spirit have been included in the definition of alcohol as such it became taxable u/s 3 of the 1939 Act and it became exempt from Sales Tax Act u/s 4 w.e.f. 2.5.1974.

8. Further amendments were made in the 1948 Act by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1975. By Section 5 of the U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 in sub-section (1) of Section (3A), clause (c) was substituted to the following effect:

(c) on the turnover of Spirits and spirituous liquors of all kinds including methyl alcohol and motor spirit, diesel oil and alcohol as defined under the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, at such point and at such rate not exceeding twenty-six per cent, as the State Government may, by notification, declare:

Provided that no tax shall be levied on any goods under this clause if tax is payable on purchase or sale of such goods, under any other Uttar Pradesh Act for the time being in force;

9. By Section 10 of the same U.P. Amendment Act 31 of 1995 in Section 4 in clause (a) following amendment was made:

10 Amendment of Section 4.- In Section 4 of the principal Act,--

(a) clause (a), the words and figures 'motor spirit, diesel oil or alcohol as defined in the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939' shall be omitted and be deemed to have always been omitted;

10. By U.P. Act No. 11 of 1997 further amendments were made in 1948 Act. By section 3 of the Amendment Act, amendments were made in Section 3A of the 1948 Act which are to the following effect:

3. Amendment of Section 3A.--In Section 3A of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely:

(c) on the turnover of spirits and spirituous liquors of all kinds including methyl alcohol and motor spirit, diesel oil and alcohol as defined under the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, at the point of sale by the manufacturer or importer or such other single point, as the State Government may, by notification, declare at the rate of twenty per cent or at such rate not exceeding twenty six per cent, as the State Government may, by notification declare.

11. It is relevant to note that the above revisions relate to the Assessment Years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1979-80 and 1981-82 respectively. It is further relevant to note that two entries in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India which are relevant need also to be noted. Entry 92A of List 1 which is Union List provides as follows:

92A. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.

In List 2 i.e. State List Entry 54 provides as follows:

Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92A of List I.

12. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 has been enacted by the Parliament to formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or outside a State or in the course of imports into or export from India, to provide for the levy, collection and distribution of taxes on sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 2(i) defines "sales tax law" in following manner:

(i) "sales tax law" means any law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof which provides for the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods generally or on any specified goods expressly mentioned in that behalf, and "general sales tax law" means the law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof which provides for the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods generally'

13. Section 6 provides liability to tax on inter-State sales. Section 8 provides rate of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 8(2A) which is relevant for the present case as was existing on the Statute Book at the relevant time, provides as follows:

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or Sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover insofar as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods.

14. Having noted the relevant statutory provisions, now we proceed to note and consider the relevant submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

15. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that liability to pay central sales tax u/s 8(2A) shall not be there only when sale or purchase under the sales tax law of the appropriate State is exempted. He submits that according to 1939 Act, the tax was leviable on the alcohol at the relevant time hence, liability of central sales tax was very much there on the assessee. He submits that the fact that under the 1948 Act tax on alcohol was exempted at the relevant time is not relevant since Section 8(2A) refers to sales tax law of the appropriate State. He submits that 1939 Act was a sales tax law of the appropriate State hence, assessee was liable to pay central sales tax. It is further submitted by Sri Tripathi that in view of the amendments made by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1974 and by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975, rectified spirit and denatured spirit i.e. alcohol became taxable u/s 3 of the 1939 Act although it was exempted from sales tax u/s 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1948 w.e.f. 2.5.1974. There being liability to pay tax under the 1939 Act, Section 8(2A) was not attracted. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent amendment in the 1948 Act by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 and U.P. Act No. 11 of 1997 taxability on alcohol was made with retrospective effect under the 1948 Act. He submits that learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 8(2A) of the 1956 Act and committed error in holding that transaction was not covered by Explanation to Section 8(2A) thus tax was exempt. He submits that referring order has noted all the relevant provisions and has rightly disagreed with the earlier judgment of learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra).

16. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the assessee refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist contended that 1939 Act is not a 'sales tax law' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of 1956 Act. He submits that the phrase "sales tax law" used in 1956 Act has been used in reference to words "sale or purchase of goods" as occurring in Entry 54 of List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 1939 Act having been enacted with reference to Entry 48 of List II of Government of India Act, 1935 is not a "sales tax law". He submits that during the relevant period tax on alcohol being exempt under the 1948 Act, Section 8(2A) was clearly attracted and the central sales tax on the sale by the assessee was exempt as has rightly been held by the Tribunal. Sri Agarwal submits that the judgment of learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) has correctly interpreted Section 8(2A) which judgment and other judgments following the said judgment of this Court need to be approved. He submits that constitutional inhibition or statutory restriction under the legislative entry is an important fact for determining whether a law is a sales tax law or not under the 1956 Act. 1939 Act is not a sales tax law of the State of U.P. insofar as it provides for levy of purchase tax on the purchase of alcohol and sales of rectified spirit and denatured spirit are exempt from tax generally u/s 4(a) of the 1948 Act hence intra-State sale of goods is exempted generally and dealer/manufacturer/respondent is not liable for payment of any tax. The general exemption u/s 4(a) of 1948 Act in respect of sales of alcohol remained in operation till 27.9.1994 i.e. during the relevant assessment year. The amendment in section 3A(1) in 1948 came into force on 28.9.1994 in view of the U.P. Act No. 35 of 1995. Thus, withdrawal of general exemption on the sale of alcohol as defined in 1939 Act came into effect w.e.f. 28.9.1994. Inspite of the provisions of section 3A of 1948 Act providing for levy of tax, alcohol which was generally exempt u/s 4(a) of the 1948 Act during relevant time while intervening taxable turnover exempted turnover of goods has to be exempted. If any particular good is not liable to tax no question of granting any exemption u/s 4(a) of Trade Tax Act in respect thereof would at all arise.

17. Sri C.B. Tripathi in rejoinder submitted that the interpretation put to Entry 48 of List II of the Government of India Act, 1935 by learned counsel for the assessee is incorrect. He submits that Entry has to be given a wide meaning which may include both purchase and sale. He submits that purchase and sale are two parts of the same transaction.

18. Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court, Apex Court and other High Courts, which shall be referred to while considering their submissions in detail.

19. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

20. The issues which fall for consideration in these revisions are as follows:

(1) Whether sale of alcohol during the relevant period was exempt under 'sales tax law' of the State of U.P. hence, there would be no liability of payment of central sales tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act?

(2) Whether the judgment of learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) and other three judgments following the said judgment as noted above lay down the correct law?

(3) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay any central sales tax on inter-State sales of alcohol?

21. All the issues being inter-connected are taken up together. Section 8(2A) as noted above makes it clear that if the sale or purchase of any goods is exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State there shall be no liability of payment of central sales tax. The question is as to whether during the relevant period, under the Sales Tax law of the State of U.P., there was exemption from tax on alcohol generally. As noted above the provisions of 1939 Act were amended by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1974 by which amendment u/s 3 of the 1939 Act alcohol become taxable w.e.f. 2.5.1974. Similarly by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 payment of tax under the 1948 Act on alcohol was exempted u/s 4 of the 1948 Act. By virtue of amendments made in Section 4 by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1975, the tax on alcohol was exempted u/s 4 w.e.f. 2.5.1974. The thrust of the submission of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal is that 1939 Act is not 'sales tax law' of the appropriate state hence, taxability under the 1939 Act on alcohol shall not detract the benefit of exemption under the 1948 Act and consequently, the central sales tax Act shall also be exempted u/s 8 (2A) of the 1956 Act. Thus, it has to be examined as to whether the 1939 Act is a 'sales tax law' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of 1956 Act or not. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal submits that 1939 Act has been enacted in reference to Entry 48 of List II of 1935 Act, which only provided tax on the sale of goods and since 1939 Act only provided tax at the point of first purchase hence, 1939 Act cannot be treated to be sales tax law. He submits that definition of 'sales tax law' presupposes a law made in reference to Entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

22. The definition of 'sales tax law' as contained in Section 2(i) of the 1956 Act means any law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof. The definition of 'sales tax law' cannot be read to mean that it refers to any sales tax law enacted in reference to Entry 54 of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The "law" and "laws in force" have been defined in Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India which is to the following effect:

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

23. Definition of "laws in force" is inclusive definition which specifically provides laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution. Thus, laws made by provincial legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935 which were in operation are fully included in the definition of sales tax law. The submission of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal that since Entry 48 of List II of the Government of India Act, 1935 only provided for sale of goods and do not include purchase, the 1939 Act is not a sales tax law, is fallacious. Article 372 of the Constitution of India provides for continuance of the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the Commencement of the Constitution of India until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature. Article 372(1) is quoted below:

372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.

24. Submission of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal that Entry 48 of Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935 only provided for tax on sale of goods hence it was not a sale tax law, is fallacious. It is well settled that language used in the Legislative Entries in the Constitution of India must be interpreted in a broad way so as to give the widest amplitude of power to the legislature to legislate and not in a narrow and pedantic sense. Reference is made to judgment of Supreme Court in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1963 AIR S.C. 414 in which following was laid down:

The language used in the legislative entries in the Constitution must be interpreted in a broad way so as to give the widest amplitude of power to the legislature to legislate and not in a narrow and pedantic sense.

25. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in V.M. Syed Mohammad and Company Vs. The State of Andhra, . Similar submission was raised in the aforesaid case that Entry 48 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 does not empower the provincial Legislature to enact a law imposing a tax on purchasers. On the aforesaid ground the challenged was made to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The argument was repelled in paragraph 4 which is quoted below:

...This argument appears to us to be fallacious, for the intention of the Constituent Assembly as expressed in entry 54 in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution cannot be a guide for ascertaining the intention of a totally, different body, namely, the British Parliament, in enacting entry 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. Further, we agree with the High Court that entry 48 in List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, on a proper construction, was wide enough to cover a law imposing tax on the purchaser of goods as well and that the Constituent Assembly in entry 54 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution accepted this liberal construction of the corresponding entry 48 and expressed in clearer language what was implicit in that corresponding entry.

26. Section 8(2A) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 fell for consideration before the Apex Court in International Cotton Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. CTO [1975] UPTC 682. The Apex Court in the said case held that sale and purchase in respect of the same transaction are not two different transactions. They are two facets of the same transaction. Following was laid down in paragraph 9:

9........We will, therefore, have to look into the amended sub-section (2A) of section 8 and see what it means. The contention of the appellants primarily depends upon the words "the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax". What is urged is that transactions of purchase are generally exempt from the tax whenever the goods are taxable at the point of sale and similarly the transactions of sale are exempt from tax generally whenever the goods are taxable at the point of purchase. The untenability of this argument would be apparent from the fact that this means that all sales and purchases are generally exempt from tax. This argument proceeds on the basis that the sale and purchase are different transactions. The Legislature might for the sake of convenience or from other considerations of policy make either a sale or a purchase taxable in respect of the sale of any particular goods. That does not mean that the sale and purchase in respect of the same transactions are two different transactions. They are two facets of the same transactions. Therefore when sub-section (2A) of section 8 uses the words "the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase" it is mere referring to the fact that State Sales Tax Acts make either the Sale or purchase taxable and not that where the sale is taxable the purchase is exempt from tax and where the purchase is taxable the sale is exempt from lax and therefore where one of them is exempt from tax in respect of an intrastate sale the inter-State sale is completely exempt from tax. We agree with the view of the Mysore High Court that the object of sub-section (2A) of section 8 is to exempt transaction of sale of any goods if they are wholly exempt from the tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State and make the said sale chargeable at lower rates whereunder the Sales Tax Act of the State the sale transactions are chargeable to tax at lower a rate and it is not correct to say that where goods are taxable at the point of purchase or sale the transaction is exempt from tax generally. A sales lax has necessarily to be levied on a sale or purchase and this argument implies that all sales are exempt from tax. The plain meaning of the said sub-section is that if under the sales tax law of the appropriate State no tax is levied either at the point of sale or at the point of purchase at any stage the tax under the Act shall be nil.....

27. Sri C.B. Tripathi has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1976] 37 STC 432. In the aforesaid case, the issue was as to whether the Central Sales Tax was payable on inter-State sales of motor spirit. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee on his turnover of inter-State sales of motor spirit. The appeal and revision were dismissed. The matter was taken to the Tribunal which took the view that definition of expression of "sales tax law" in Section 2(i) of 1956 Act was wide enough to include the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946. Following was observed by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal took the view that the definition of the expression 'sales tax law' in section 2(i) of the said Act was wide enough to include the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946, and overruled the submission of the assessees that they were entitled to exemption under the aforesaid proviso on the ground that the sales of motor spirit were exempted from tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The assessees have now approached this court by way of this reference.

28. The assessee came to the High Court. It was contended before the High Court that sales of motor spirit are exempted from tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 hence, there be no liability to pay central sales tax. It was contended that sales tax law included generally a sales tax law. The said contention was negativated. It is useful to quote paragraphs 3 and 4:

3. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel for the assessees, submitted that the sales of motor spirits are exempted from tax under the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act, as u/s 7(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with entry 35 of Schedule A to that Act, as it stood at the relevant time, such sales were exempted generally from the payment of sales tax under that Act, viz., the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. It was urged by him that the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, at the relevant time, was the sales tax law for the appropriate State, viz., the State of Bombay, as it then was, and as the sales and purchases of motor spirit by a dealer were exempted from tax generally under that law, the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act was applicable and the assessees were entitled to the exemption granted thereunder. It was further urged by him that the expression 'the sales tax law' used in the said proviso to section 8(1) must be interpreted as meaning only the general sales tax law, which levied tax on sale of goods generally, and that the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946, could not be said to be covered by that expression. In our view, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Patel that the expression 'the sales tax law' in the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act is confined in its operation or ambit to the general sales tax law. The definition of the expression 'sales tax law' in section 2(i) of the said Act, which we have already set out above, shows that by that expression is meant any law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof which provides for the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods generally or on any specified goods expressly mentioned in that behalf. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the expression 'sales tax law' includes a general sales tax laws as well as law providing for the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of specified goods, which are expressly mentioned in that behalf. The expression 'general sales tax law', which is also defined in the said sub-section, is an expression of narrower ambit and is covered in the expression 'sales tax law'. In view of this, it appears to us that to attract the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act, it is not enough that the sale or purchase of the goods in question is exempted from tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, but it is further necessary that the sale or purchase of the said goods should not be liable to tax under any sales tax law relating to specified goods. In the present case, there is no dispute that the sale and purchase of motor spirits were liable to tax at the relevant time under the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946, and hence it cannot be said that they were exempted from tax under all laws levying sales tax in the then State of Bombay. In view of this, in our opinion, the exemption granted under the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act is not attracted and the assessees cannot claim the benefit thereof.

It was next submitted by Mr. Patel that the assessees were entitled to the benefit of the exemption given under the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act, because u/s 7(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with entry 35 of Schedule A, as it then stood, there was a general exemption and not a conditional exemption granted to the sales and purchases of motor spirits from the levy of sales tax. In our view, even if the exemption u/s 7(1) read with entry 35 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is general, as contended by Mr. Patel, the assessees are still not entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted under the proviso to section 8(1) of the said Act, because the sales of motor spirits were taxable under another sales tax law, viz., the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946. Moreover, it is quite clear that the exemption granted under the aforesaid provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, was only relating to the levy of sales tax under that Act and did not prevent such a levy being imposed by another law levying sales tax.

4. We feel that it would not be out of place to consider at this stage the reason why the sale and purchase of motor spirits were exempted from the levy of sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. It is settled law that it is permissible to refer to the legislative history and to the statement of objects and reasons appended to a Bill which eventually becomes an Act, for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce the same and the extent and urgency of the evil which he sought to remedy (see Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay v. Lala Lajpatrai Hotel [1975] 35 S.T.C. 368. Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1939, a tax on the sale of motor spirit and certain type of textile mentioned in the schedule thereto was levied in the then Province of Bombay. In 1946 there appeared a need to augment the provincial revenue in order to meet the expenditure, recurring and non-recurring, on post-war reconstruction, and it was felt necessary to enact a law for the imposition of sales tax on a wide range of commodities. This appears from the statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill, which ultimately became the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. 5 of 1946). This Act was the General Sales Tax Act applicable to the then Province of Bombay. The aforesaid statement of objects and reasons, to which we have already referred, further shows that it was proposed to exempt certain essential articles such as food grains and cheap cloth, as also articles which were already subject to a separate Central or Provincial tax such as matches, sugar, liquor, opium and electricity. These exempted items have been set out in the schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. In consonance with the statement of objects and reasons, entry 11 of the said schedule exempted gur, sugar and molasses, entry 22 exempted matches and entry 24 exempted goods on which duty was or might have been levied under the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, or the Opium Act, 1878. Entry 26 of the said schedule ran thus : "Motor spirit, meaning any liquid or admixture of liquids which is capable of providing reasonably efficient motive power for any form of motor vehicle and which has a flashing point below 76 Degree F."

Under the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. 6 of 1946), which was passed immediately after the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, a tax was levied on the sales of motor spirit of the identical description as the one contained in the aforesaid entry 26. In 1953 when the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, was repealed, and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, being the then general sales tax law was enacted, the sales of motor spirit of the aforesaid description continued to remain subject to the levy of tax under the Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1946. It was in view of this and in consonance with the scheme followed in 1946 that this exemption given under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, was continued under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. This legislative history makes it quite clear that it was never the legislative intention that the sales of motor spirit should be exempted from the levy of sales tax, but the exemption was granted from such levy under the general sales tax law, namely, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, merely on account of the item being taxed under a separate sales tax law dealing in particular with that item.

In the result, in our view, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The assessees to pay the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 250. The fee of Rs. 100 paid by the assessees to be appropriated towards the amount of the costs awarded by us to the department. Reference answered in the affirmative.

29. The facts of Maharashtra case were identical. The identical submissions which are being made before us was considered and negativated by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgment.

30. Now we come to the judgment of learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) correctness of which judgment has been doubted in the referring order. In the aforesaid case, the argument of the assessee was that since the assessee is a manufacturer of alcohol and motor spirit where tax is attracted on the first purchase only hence, there is no liability on the assessee to pay tax on the inter-state sales of alcohol. The claim of assessee was rejected by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal in the said case held that since the 1939 Act is a taxing statute and under the State Statute there is a tax on the purchase of alcohol thus, assessee was not exempted from the tax on the purchase of alcohol u/s 8(2A) of the 1956 Act. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, submissions were noted which are to the following effect:

2. The argument raised on behalf of the assessee is that since the assessee is a manufacturer of alcohol and the Motor Spirit Act attracts tax at the time of first purchase only there is no liability on the assessee to pay tax on the inter-State sale of alcohol. In this view of the matter for the purpose of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act the rate of tax under the Motor Spirit Act shall be nil and consequently there will be no liability under the Central Sales Tax Act also. The submission further proceeds to say that the Sales Tax Tribunal is in error in holding that although there is no liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act but since the aforesaid Motor Spirit Act is a taxing statute and under the said statute there is a tax on the purchase of alcohol, therefore, it cannot be held that the assessee was exempted from the tax for the purposes of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. By virtue of Section 3(1), Clause (c), of the said Act tax is leviable on alcohol at the point of first purchase in the State at the rate mentioned in the said sub-section. The question that falls for consideration, therefore, is as to whether in view of the aforesaid provision under the Motor Spirit Act it can be said that the dealer was exempt from the tax, generally and that in the present case tax was nil for the purpose of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the dealer is sought to be refuted by the learned standing counsel. He contends that if the provisions of Section 8(2A) are interpreted the result will be the same as held by the Sales Tax Tribunal.

31. Learned Single Judge after noticing Section 8(2A) and its Explanation, laid down following in paragraph 4:

4. A very close scrutiny of the aforesaid Act disclosed that it is manifest that tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act by a dealer on his turnover relates to the sale of any goods, the purchase or sale of which is under the sales tax law liable at the appropriate stage or exempt from tax generally. Thus in my opinion from a reading of the aforesaid provision the emphasis is on the goods and not on the sales tax law of the appropriate State and the Tribunal is clearly in error in interpreting the aforesaid provision to the contrary. What remains to be examined is the interpretation of the words 'exempt from tax generally'. Explanation to Section 8(2A) contemplates three circumstances to which fiction extends for interpretation of the aforesaid words. The same are (a) if the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances, (b) or is exempt under the aforesaid conditions or (c) lax is levied at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. I find that in the present case liability to tax which is contemplated under the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Motor Spirit Act, is neither under any of the aforesaid circumstance as there are no circumstances specified except the point at which tax is leviable nor any conditions are attached to the aforesaid levy nor can it be said that tax is levied at some specified stage. As regards the last portion of the explanation which says otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods will not be applicable because the present is a case of manufacture of goods and the law does not provide exemption of goods with reference to the turnover of the goods. Hence this circumstance also does not arise in the present case. Therefore, the conclusion, in my opinion is that the present case is also not hit by the explanation to the aforesaid Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

32. Learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 has observed that Section 8(2A) indicates that emphasis is on the 'goods' and not on the 'sales tax law of the appropriate State'. Learned Single Judge further proceeded to interpret Explanation to Section 8(2A) and interpreted the word "exempt from tax generally" by three circumstances to which fiction extends as per learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that the transaction in question was not covered by Explanation to the aforesaid section 8(2A).

33. In section 8(2A) words used are "exempt from tax generally" Explanation to Section 8(2A) enumerates the circumstances when for the purpose of Section (2A) a sale or purchase of any good shall not be deemed to exempt from tax generally. Explanation enumerates that when sale or purchase of goods are exempt only (i) in specified circumstances or (ii) only in or under specified conditions or (iii) the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. The present is not a case where the transaction in question is covered by any of the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation.

34. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works (P) Ltd., was a case where exemption was granted in respect of specified goods purchased by certain newly set up undertakings. In Hindustan Safety Glass Works exemption was granted from payment of sales tax to various new industrial undertakings. While interpreting Section 8(2A), the Apex Court held that in the said case the assessee would not be entitled to get benefit of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is useful to quote paragraphs 5 and 8:

5. In the instant case, the exemption has not been granted to the goods generally. Specified goods (mirrors and toughened glass) produced by a specified company have been exempted from payment of sales tax for a specified period of time. It is not the case of the assessee that mirrors and toughened glass have been generally exempted from payment of tax. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. (supra), it must be held that the assessee will not be entitled to get benefit of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act in the facts of this case.

8. Having regard to the language of the section before its amendment, we are unable to uphold the contention of Mr. Agarwal. The exemption from the Central Sales Tax Act under the repealed provision was in respect of 'sales or purchases......of any goods by a dealer'. The section granted exemption to any goods of a dealer when such goods were 'exempt from tax generally..........'. In order to take advantage of this Section 8(2A), a dealer will have to establish that sale or purchase of the goods in question was exempt from tax generally. If it was a special exemption granted to him because his undertaking was a new industrial undertaking or for any other reason for a limited period, then the exemption will not be of general nature and he will not be entitled to get the benefit of this sub-section. There was an Explanation to the old sub-section (2A) of Section 8, which made it clear that if the exemption was only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or in relation to which the tax was levied at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of goods, then the sale or purchase of goods shall not be deemed to be exempted from tax generally.

35. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, J and K and Others Vs. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Others, was also a case where requirements of Section 8(2A) were not fulfilled. In paragraphs 9 and 10 following was held:

9. The simple question before us is whether the Bench which decided Pine Chemicals is right in holding that the benefit of the said sub-section is available even where the goods are exempted with reference to industrial unit and for a specified period, viz., period of five years from the date the relevant unit goes into production. In other words, the question is whether an exemption of the nature granted under Government Order No. 159 dated Mach 26, 1971 is an exemption available 'only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions' within the meaning of the explanation to Section 8(2A), as contended by the State or is it a case where the goods are exempt from the tax 'generally' within the meaning of Section 8(2A), as contended by the respondents-dealers? We are of the opinion that the respondents-dealers' contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of the sub-section.

10. The idea behind sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which we have analysed hereinbefore, is to exempt the sale/purchase of goods from the Central Sales tax where the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt generally under the State sales tax law. We must give due regard and attach due meaning to the expression 'generally' which occurs in the sub-section and which expression has been defined in the explanation. If the said expression had not been there, it could probably have been possible to argue that inasmuch as the goods sold by a particular manufacturer-dealer are exempt from the State tax in his hands, they must equally be exempt under the Central Act. But sub-section (2A) requires specifically that such exemption must be a general exemption and not an exemption operative in specified circumstances or under specified conditions. Can it be said that the goods sold by the dealers in this cases are exempt from tax generally under the State sales tax enactment? The answer can only be in the negative. Such goods are exempt from tax only when they are manufactured in a large or medium industrial unit within five years of its commencement of production and sold within the said period, i.e., in certain specified circumstances alone. The exemption is not a general one but a conditional one. The exemption under the Government Order No. 159 is not with reference to goods or a class or category of goods but with reference to the industrial unit producing them and their manufacture and sale within a particular period. For the purposes of the government order, the nature, class or category of goods is irrelevant; it may be any goods. It is concerned only with the industrial unit producing them and the period within which they are manufactured and sold. Can it be said in such a case that it is an instance where the sale is of goods, the sale or purchase of which is under sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally? Certainly not. Exemption provided by Government Order No. 159, to repeat, is not with reference to goods but with reference to the industrial unit. So long as it is (i) a large or medium scale industry and (ii) it manufactures and sells goods within the five years of its going into production, the sale of such goods is exempt irrespective of the nature or classification of goods. Similar goods may be manufactured by another unit but if it does not satisfy the above two requirements, the goods manufactured and sold by it would not be entitled to exemption from tax. Indeed, the goods manufactured by that very unit would not be eligible for exemption if they are manufactured after the expiry of five years from the date it goes into production and/or sells them beyond the said period. The period of exemption may also vary from unit to unit depending on the date of commencement of production in each unit. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the exemption granted under the aforesaid government order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 8(2A).

36. Learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) had unnecessarily adverted to Explanation to Section 8(2A). The case of Oudh Sugar Mills {supra) was not a case which was covered by Explanation to Section 8(2A). Learned Single Judge however, did not advert as to whether the tax on alcohol was generally exempt. It was noticed by learned Single Judge that it was taxable under the 1939 Act. Even after noticing the liability of tax under the 1939 Act, the learned Single Judge did not consider as to whether 1939 Act is 'sales tax law' within the meaning of Section 2(i) and has fell in error in observing that u/s 8(2A) emphasis is on the goods and not on the sales tax law of the appropriate State. The view taken by learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) is not based on correct interpretation of Section 8(2A) and has to be disapproved.

37. The judgment of learned Single Judge in Carew & Co. Ltd. v. CST 1992 U.P.T.C. 452 was again a case where same interpretation was adopted by the same learned Single Judge who decided Oudh Sugar Mills' case (supra). In Carew & Co. Ltd. case (supra) in paragraph 3 following was laid down:

Learned Counsel for the assessee has during the course of his submission invited my attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1987 U.P. Tax Cases 103. The view taken by this Court in the said case is that from a reading of provision of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it is clear, that the emphasis is on the goods and not on the sales tax law of the appropriate State. It has also been held that the Explanation to Section 8(2A) contemplated three circumstances to which fiction extends for interpretation of the aforesaid words. The same are -(a) if the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances, (b) or is exempt under the aforesaid conditions, or (c) tax is levied at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. It is found that in the present case liability to tax which is contemplated under the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Motor Spirit Act, is neither under any of the aforesaid circumstances as there are no circumstances specified except the point at which tax is leviable nor any conditions are attached to the aforesaid levy nor can it be said that tax is levied at some specified stage. As regards the last portion of the explanation which says that 'otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods', will not be applicable because the present is a case of manufacture of goods and the law does not provide exemption of goods with reference to the turnover of the goods. Hence this circumstance also does not arise in the present case. Therefore, the conclusion is that the present case is also not hit by the explanation to the aforesaid Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

38. Learned Single Judge again fell in error in adverting to the Explanation to Section 8(2A) and came to the conclusion that said case was not hit by Explanation to Section 8(2A). The judgment in CST v. Awadh Sugar Mills Ltd 1997 U.P.T.C. 173 again was a case following Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra).

39. Fourth case relied by Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal is Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd v. Commissioner of Trade Tax 1997 UPTC 1032. In the said case again learned Single Judge followed Oudh Sugar Mills (supra). Learned Single Judge making the present reference has doubted the correctness of all the aforesaid four cases including the main case delivered by learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra). We are of the opinion that Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) does not lay down the correct law and other three decisions following the said judgment have also to be disapproved.

40. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Another, . Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal referred to paragraphs 6 and 8 which are quoted as below:

6. Effort was made to support the conclusion, indirectly, by urging that the State having raised same objections by way of review petition and the same having been rejected it amounted impliedly as providing reason for conclusion. Law declared is not that can be culled out but that which is stated as law to be accepted and applied. A conclusion without reference to relevant provision of law is weaker than even casual observation. In the order of brother Thommen, the extracts from the judgment of the Constitution Bench quoted in extenso demonstrate that the question of validity of levy of sales and purchase tax was neither in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

issue nor was it raised nor is there any discussion in the judgment except of course the stray argument advanced by the learned Attorney General to the following effect. "But alcohol not fit for human consumption are not luxury and as such the State Legislatures according to Attorney General will have no power to levy tax on such alcohol. Sales tax or purchase tax under Entry 54 is levied on sale or purchase of goods. It does not contemplate any distinction between luxury and necessity. Luxuries are separately taxable under Entry 62. But that has nothing to do with Entry 54. What prompted this submission is not clear. Neither there was any occasion nor there is any constitutional inhibition or statutory restriction under the legislative Entry nor does the taxing statute make any distinction between luxuries and necessities for levying tax. In any case the Bench did not examine it nor did it base its conclusions on it. In absence of any discussion or any argument the order was founded on a mistake of fact and, therefore, it could not be held to be law declared. The Bench further was not apprised of earlier Constitution Bench decisions in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, which specifically dealt with the legislative competence of levying sales tax in respect of any industry which had been declared to be of public importance. Therefore, the conclusion of law by the Constitution Bench that no sales or purchase tax could be levied on industrial alcohol with utmost respect felt in both the exceptions, namely, rule of sub-silentio and being in per incurium, to the binding authority of the precedents. 8. Can this principle apply to levy of purchase tax by an enactment made in exercise of legislative power under Entry 54 of List II? Power to tax is a sovereign power. In federal system of governance it is exercised by distribution of power between the Union and the State. Both are supreme in their sphere. That is brought out clearly by Article 246(1) and Article 246(3) of the Constitution. The legislative field for levying tax by Union is set out in Entries 82 to 92 in List I and of State in Entries 45 to 63 in List II of the VIIth Schedule. There is no overlapping. Fields are clearly demarcated. Limitations and restrictions are also mentioned. Unlike general entries power to levy tax cannot be deduced from another Entry as ancillary exercise of power. Since the Concurrent List does not contain any Entry relating to taxing power the concept of occupied field or repugnancy cannot arise. If there is clash between exercise of power under List II and Last I then the State legislation may be invalid due to Article 246(1). But since there can be no clash or invalidity in relation to taxing power the question of invalidity cannot arise. 41. Before the Apex Court, the contention was raised that levy of purchase tax on industrial alcohol by U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1939 was null and void insofar as State Legislature was incompetent to levy tax with reference to Entry 54 List II in respect of industrial alcohol. The Apex Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Following was laid down in paragraph 9: 9. Price fixation of ethyl alcohol is an exercise of power for regulating distribution and supply of it. The general entry for regulating distribution and supply is different from exercise of taxing power. The two do not even remotely touch each other. Therefore, if the price goes up in exercise of taxing power then subject to its being arbitrary or confiscatory it could not be struck down as intruding in forbidden field. In Hoechest Pharmaceuticals {supra) this Court while examining the ambit of Entry 54 of List II observed, Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule is only subject to Entry 92A of List I and there can be no further curtailment of the status of power of taxation. Therefore the entire basis for striking down the levy that even though the State had plenary power to impose tax on sales/purchase of goods can exercise taxing power under Entry 54 of List II so long as it does not militate against the legislative field occupied by the Central Government under the IDR Act or any other enactment made under Entry 52 of List-I proceeded on complete misconception of taxing powers of State. In fact as stated earlier the entire theory of occupied field or State legislation being repugnant to Central legislation is available when the two legislatures exercise their powers under Concurrent List. Therefore, the order of the High Court striking down the levy cannot be upheld. 42. The above judgment in no manner helps assessee in the present case. 43. In view of the foregoing discussions our answers to the above issues are: 1. United Provinces Sales of (Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol) Taxation Act, 1939 is a 'sales tax law' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The alcohol being taxable under the 1939 Act, payment of central sales tax on inter-State sale of alcohol was not exempted as per provisions of Section 8(2A) of the 1956 Act even though there was general exemption u/s 4 of the 1948 Act. 2. The judgment of learned Single Judge in Oudh Sugar Mills (supra) does not lay down the correct law. The other three judgments of the learned Single Judges as noted above taking the same view following the judgment of Oudh Sugar Mills also for the same reasons are disapproved. 3. The Tribunal fell in error in taking the view that assessee was not liable for payment of central sales tax on the inter-State sale of alcohol. The orders of the Tribunal impugned in these revisions are hereby set aside. 44. In the result all the revisions are allowed. The orders of the Tribunal impugned in the revisions are set aside restoring the order of the assessing officer. Parties shall bear their own costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
22-04-2020 West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Others Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 M/s. Paul Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Hari Darshan Sevashram Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-02-2020 Executive Director, Sales And Marketing Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Paramjeet Singh Brar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-02-2020 Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
04-02-2020 Society of Welfare Handicapped Person Versus The Regional Sales Manager, RFCL Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-01-2020 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
09-01-2020 M/s. Shri Durga Khandsari Sugar Mills Mendrana, Madhya Pradesh Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Madhya Pradesh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
16-12-2019 Kuber (India) Sales Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Sri Debraj Choudhury Versus Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
03-12-2019 M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., Rep. by its: Manager Finance, P.S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Commissioner for Cane Development & Director of Sugar, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-12-2019 M. Lakshmi Versus The Secretary D.D.9 Uthangarai Agriculture Producers Co-operative Sales Societies Ltd., Krishnagiri District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2019 The Manager, Machino Techno Sales Ltd. Versus Prithwis Chanda Deb & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Administrator, Kallakuruchi -II Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Villupuram Versus The Deputy Chief Inspector of Police, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 The Management of Ponni Sugar Mills (The Management of Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited), Namakkal, Rep. by its President, R. Chandramouli Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Officer, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 D. Ganesan Versus The Chairman/Special Officer, The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic, Palacode, Dharmapuri & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 The Special Officer, (presently the Managing Director), Thirupathur Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vellore Versus The Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 The State of Bihar & Others Versus M/s. Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 Vivek Verma Versus Ipro Sugar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
15-10-2019 M/s Fortune Automobiles (India) Pvt., Ltd., (Ford authorized sales and services dealers), Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Nirva Modi & Others Versus Bandi Venu Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
25-09-2019 G. Ravichandran Versus The District Revenue Officer/Administrator, M.R. Krishnamoorthy Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 K.M. Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus The Commissioner of Sugar, Sugar Commissionerate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-08-2019 M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd. Shahnazaf Road Lko.Throu. Director Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax Ashok Marg Lko High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-08-2019 M/s. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sree Howrah Stores, partnership firm, represented by its partner, Ashok Kumar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 Kashish Country Resort Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bansal Sales Corporation High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 Maniyarasu & Another Versus The Commissioner of Sugar, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2019 The Management, represented by its Administrator, Cheyyar Co-operative Sugar Mill, Anakkavur, Thiruvannamalai District Versus The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-07-2019 Sushila Versus Gangakhed Sugar & Energy Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-07-2019 The Sales Manager, M/s.Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Adoor Branch & Another Versus Shaiju.P. Mathew & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
17-07-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti & Another Versus M/s. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mill Ltd. & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
01-07-2019 K.C. Sundaram Versus The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Sales, Planning and Development), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2019 G. Malathi Versus The Deputy General Manager, L.P.G. Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-05-2019 Nayaagarh Sugar Complex Limited Versus SBI General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-05-2019 Nayaagarh Sugar Complex Limited Versus SBI General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-04-2019 Shankar Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - II High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-04-2019 The Deputy General Manager (LPG-Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai Versus M.C. Meyyappan @ Manickam High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 TK. Duraimohan Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 D. Ganesan Versus The Commissioner of Sugar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-03-2019 Ravi Pal Versus All India Sugar Trade Association (AISTA) & Another Competition Commission of India
19-03-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Warangal Dist. & Another Versus Gummi Prudvi Raja Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-03-2019 General Manager, M/s. Jaikrishnaa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus S. Thangamani & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
26-02-2019 M/s. Hateemy Sales Corporation, Rep. By its Prop. Husseni (deceased) & Others Versus R. Sudhakar High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2019 MMTC Limited Versus M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-02-2019 Gummi Prudvi Raja Reddy Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, rep. by its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Warangal Division High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-02-2019 The Administrator, M.R. Krishnamurthy Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Cuddalore District Versus V. Suresh Kumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2019 The Administrator, M.R. Krishnamurthy Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Cuddalore District Versus V. Suresh Kumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2019 M/s. Rama Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-01-2019 Lakshmi Sugar Mill, Uttaranchal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
14-01-2019 Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah Versus M/s. Bhoomi Tractors Sales & Services & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2019 John Distilleries Pvt. Limited Versus The Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2019 Gangakhed Sugar & Energy Limited Nagpur Through its Director Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Chief Managing Director & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
07-01-2019 Sales Versus M/s. Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-01-2019 M/s. Aculife Healthcare Private Ltd., Gujarat Previously Known as Nirma Limited (Healthcare Division), Represented by Its Regional Sales Manager, Ajish Mathew & Another Versus The Kerala Medical Service Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
10-12-2018 M/s. TDI International India (P) Ltd., Represented by General Manager (Sales), Sir Usman Court, New Delhi Versus The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Administrative Building, Airport Authority of India, Chennai International Airport, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2018 Kun Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry, Represented by Collin Elson, Sales Manager & Another Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, Kerala State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
29-10-2018 Finolex Industries Limited Versus The Commissioner of Sales Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-2018 M/s. Daurala Sugar Works Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-10-2018 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others Versus Amol G. Deore & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-10-2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Susee Auto Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd., Madurai Versus V. Dukkaiammal & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-10-2018 M. Anbazhagan Versus The Director of Sugar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2018 Hada Textile Industries Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer, Govt of West Bengal & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-09-2018 Online Communications Sales & Services, Malappuram District Versus P.K. Balan Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-08-2018 Mdc Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Ito, Ward- 16(3), New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
29-08-2018 Alangomby Devanga Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Manoharan Alangombu, Coimbatore Versus C. Govindaraj High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2018 The Management of M/s. Hewelet Packard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore Versus The Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
31-07-2018 M/s. PJES Industries Versus M/s. Vijaya Motor Sales & Services & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2018 M/s. The Ganga Kishansahkari Sugar Versus Commissioner, U.P. Trade Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-07-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chadha Sugar & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
24-07-2018 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad - Customs Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
23-07-2018 ITO Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai Versus Prudential Sugar Corporation Ltd, Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
19-07-2018 Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
17-07-2018 M/s Pooran Sugar Works Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-07-2018 Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., Represented by its Chief Financial Officer South India Film Chambers of Commerce Building Versus Tamil Nadu Cooperative Sugar Federation, Represented by the Managing Director High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Nupur Sales Corporation, through its legal & constituted attorney, Sanjay Versus Mayur Jethwa In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
10-07-2018 Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited Versus M/s. R.S. Sales Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
05-07-2018 The Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd V/S CCE & ST, Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
29-06-2018 Kareli Sugar Mills P. Ltd V/S CGST-CC & CE, Jabalpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
14-06-2018 Titawi Sugar Complex V/S CCE, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
31-05-2018 M/s. Santani Sales Organisation Versus Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Appellate Triubnal, Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
11-05-2018 James Chadwick Rankin, carrying on business as Rankin?s Garage & Sales Versus J.J. by his Litigation Guardian, J.A.J., J.A.J., A.J. & C.C. & Others Supreme Court of Canada
20-04-2018 Gaurav Aseem Avtej Versus U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-04-2018 Jainul Abdeen Versus M/s. Goldrush Sales & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2018 M/s. S.K.F. Bearings India Limited, Rep. by its Principal Officer, Mumbai Versus N.P.K.R.R. Co-operative Sugar Mill, Thalainayiru, Rep. by its Admiunistrator & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2018 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-04-2018 V. Suresh Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Sugar, E.V.R. Periyar Maaligai, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2018 M/s. TDI International India (P) Ltd. Represented by Berryson Kagoo, General Manager( Sales), Alwarpet Versus The Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Chennai International Airport, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2018 Shashi Kumar Singh Team Leader Sales Caparo Engg. India Ltd. and Others V/S C.C.E. & S.T.-LTU, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
27-02-2018 The Management, Virudhunagar District Consumers Co-operative Whole Sales Stores Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Another Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2018 Venkateshwara Power Project Ltd & Sugar Factory, Rep. by is Managing Director Versus The Yamakanmaradi Urban Co-Op Society Ltd, Yamkanmaradi, Rep. by its General Manager, Somshekar Zutti High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
20-02-2018 M/s. Subas & Company Versus Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax High Court of Orissa
20-02-2018 J. Vijayakumar, Formerly Sales Tax Inspector, Neyyattinkara Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
16-02-2018 Gemini Bay Transcription Private Ltd. & Another Versus Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-02-2018 Bannari Smmsn Sugar Ltd. Versus C.C., C.E. & S.T, Mysore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
09-02-2018 The Management of E.I.D. Party India Ltd., Pugalur Sugar Factory Post Pugalur Rep. by its General Manager-HR & Others Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-02-2018 Bannari Smmsn Sugar Ltd V/S C.C., C.E. & S.T., Mysore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
30-01-2018 M/s. Remi Sales & Engineering Limited Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
25-01-2018 M/s. Laxmipati Balaji Sugar & Distilleries (P) Ltd. Versus Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box