1994 (3) TMI 357 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules petitioners liable for entry tax despite goods being tax-free under Sales Tax Act.

The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the petitioners are liable to pay entry tax under Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act, despite cloth, sugar, and ... - Issues Involved:1. Taxability of cloth, sugar, and tobacco under the Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act.2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act.3. Impact of Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act on entry tax liability.4. Relationship between Sections 4 and 6 of the Sales Tax Act.5. Applicability of the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, and its effect on entry tax.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of cloth, sugar, and tobacco under the Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act:The petitioners argued that since cloth, sugar, and tobacco are tax-free goods under Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, they should not be liable to pay entry tax. They contended that the taxability of these commodities does not exist, making them exempt from entry tax under Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. The respondents countered that a dealer liable to pay tax under the Sales Tax Act is also liable to pay entry tax, regardless of whether the goods are exempt from sales tax.2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act:Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act mandates that entry tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioners argued that since they are not liable to pay sales tax on cloth, sugar, and tobacco, they should not be liable for entry tax. The respondents maintained that the liability to pay entry tax is based on the dealer's liability under the Sales Tax Act, irrespective of the goods being tax-free.3. Impact of Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act on entry tax liability:Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act specifies that no tax shall be payable on the sales or purchases of goods listed in Schedule I, which includes cloth, sugar, and tobacco. The petitioners argued that this provision exempts them from both sales tax and entry tax. The respondents argued that Section 10 only affects the taxable turnover and does not exempt dealers from the overall tax liability under the Sales Tax Act.4. Relationship between Sections 4 and 6 of the Sales Tax Act:The petitioners emphasized that Section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, which is the charging section, should not be confused with Section 4, which deals with the incidence of taxation. They argued that mixing these concepts would be erroneous. The respondents argued that Section 4 casts a liability on every dealer whose turnover exceeds the prescribed limit, regardless of whether the goods are taxable.5. Applicability of the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, and its effect on entry tax:The petitioners contended that the State of Madhya Pradesh, being a participating state under the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, is prevented from imposing additional duties or taxes like entry tax on cloth, sugar, and tobacco. The respondents argued that the Additional Duties of Excise Act and the Entry Tax Act are independent of each other, and the state is not precluded from imposing entry tax.Judgment Summary:The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners are liable to pay entry tax under Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. The court reasoned that the mere fact that cloth, sugar, and tobacco are declared tax-free under Section 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act does not render the petitioners immune from being 'liable to tax' under the Sales Tax Act for the purposes of Section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act. The court emphasized that the liability to pay entry tax is based on the dealer's liability under the Sales Tax Act, irrespective of the goods being tax-free. The court also noted that the Additional Duties of Excise Act and the Entry Tax Act are independent, and the state is not precluded from imposing entry tax.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioners, being dealers liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act, are also liable to pay entry tax under the Entry Tax Act, even if the goods they deal in are tax-free under the Sales Tax Act. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.