1998 (11) TMI 645 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules sales under forms 17-A and 19 count for tax exemption. Consistency crucial for equal treatment.

Ardeec Engineering (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat

Ardeec Engineering (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat - [2000] 117 STC 178 (Guj) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for sales tax exemption.2. Computation of tax liability for sales against forms 17-A and 19.3. Interpretation of the exemption scheme under entry 118.4. Applicability of general condition No. 1 of entry 118.5. Interaction between different tax exemption and deferment schemes.6. Principles of statutory interpretation in fiscal legislation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Sales Tax Exemption:The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of auto diesel engine spare parts, set up a new industrial unit in a backward area and was issued an eligibility certificate for sales tax exemption effective from November 21, 1985. The eligible amount for exemption was quantified at Rs. 2,04,832.2. Computation of Tax Liability for Sales Against Forms 17-A and 19:The assessee claimed that sales made to registered dealers against forms 17-A and 19 should be deducted from taxable turnover. The assessing authority and the Tribunal rejected this claim, arguing that allowing such deductions would indirectly extend the tax exemption limit, which was not the government's intention.3. Interpretation of the Exemption Scheme Under Entry 118:Entry 118, inserted under section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, provided tax exemptions to specified manufacturers in backward areas. The scheme offered two types of incentives: exemption from sales tax or deferment of sales tax payment. The maximum amount of tax exemption and the period during which it could be availed were fixed. The Tribunal held that once the scheme was opted for, no other exemptions could be claimed.4. Applicability of General Condition No. 1 of Entry 118:General condition No. 1 required the aggregation of tax amounts that would have been leviable but for the exemption under entry 118. The Tribunal interpreted this to mean that sales against forms 17-A and 19 should not be deducted from taxable turnover for computing the tax exemption limit.5. Interaction Between Different Tax Exemption and Deferment Schemes:The court noted that the scheme allowed for either tax exemption or deferment, with the same limits on the amount and period of benefit. The court emphasized that the method of computing tax liability should be consistent across both schemes to avoid creating different classes of beneficiaries under the same incentive scheme.6. Principles of Statutory Interpretation in Fiscal Legislation:The court reiterated the principles of strict construction of fiscal statutes. It emphasized that clear and unambiguous language in the statute must be given effect without searching for legislative intent beyond the words used. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala and Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, to support this principle.Judgment:The court concluded that for the purpose of computing the exemption availed under entry 118, the tax liability must be determined as per the provisions of the Act, excluding the exemption under entry 118. The sales made against forms 17-A and 19 should be deducted from taxable turnover. The court held that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the sales against forms 17-A and 19 should be considered in computing the tax liability.Conclusion:The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that sales against forms 17-A and 19 should be included in the computation of tax liability and not discarded. The reference was answered in the negative, with no order as to costs.