2002 (8) TMI 831 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules deferred tax liabilities not covered under MP Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002.

Gei Engineering Ltd. and another Versus Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bhopal and others

Gei Engineering Ltd. and another Versus Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bhopal and others - [2006] 146 STC 177 (MP) Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002 to deferred tax liabilities.2. Definition and interpretation of 'amount of arrear' and 'due' under the Scheme and Rules.3. Eligibility of petitioners for the benefits under the Scheme.4. Interpretation of legal terms and their application to the facts of the case.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002 to deferred tax liabilities:The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') applies to tax liabilities that have been deferred under the Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Payment of Tax Rules, 1994. The petitioners argued that their deferred tax liabilities should be considered as 'due' and thus eligible for liquidation under the Scheme. However, the court found that the Scheme was intended for arrears that were outstanding and due for payment as of April 1, 2001, and not for amounts deferred to a future date.2. Definition and interpretation of 'amount of arrear' and 'due' under the Scheme and Rules:The court examined the definitions provided in the Scheme and the associated Rules. According to Rule 2(1)(h), 'amount of arrear' means the amount of tax, penalty, and interest imposed and due under various Acts, which is due for payment as on April 1, 2001, after the completion of assessment and service of the demand notice. The term 'due' was scrutinized, and it was determined that it refers to an amount that is immediately payable and recoverable by legal process as of the specified date. The court concluded that deferred liabilities, which are scheduled for payment after April 1, 2001, do not meet this criterion.3. Eligibility of petitioners for the benefits under the Scheme:The petitioners, who had availed of the deferment scheme, argued that they should be considered defaulters eligible for the Scheme's benefits. They contended that the deferred tax liabilities were still outstanding and due for payment. However, the court held that since the payment of these liabilities was deferred to dates after April 1, 2001, they were not 'due' as per the Scheme's requirements. Consequently, the petitioners were not eligible for the benefits under the Scheme.4. Interpretation of legal terms and their application to the facts of the case:The court delved into the legal interpretation of terms such as 'due,' 'outstanding,' and 'debt.' It referenced various legal precedents and definitions to clarify these terms. The court emphasized that 'due' implies an immediate enforceability and not a future obligation. It was noted that a debt that is deferred to a future date does not become 'due' until that date arrives. This interpretation was crucial in determining that the petitioners' deferred tax liabilities were not eligible for liquidation under the Scheme.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002, does not apply to deferred tax liabilities that are scheduled for payment after April 1, 2001. The interpretation of 'amount of arrear' and 'due' under the Scheme and Rules clearly excludes such deferred liabilities. As a result, the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits of the Scheme, and their writ petitions were dismissed. The court affirmed that the respondents' interpretation of the Scheme and Rules was correct, and there was no ambiguity or need to supply casus omissus.