TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules sales tax concession does not cover purchase tax, emphasizing government policy limits.</h1> <h3>Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and another</h3> Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and another - [2008] 11 VST 206 (Kar) Issues:Interpretation of a government policy providing for sales tax concession and its applicability to purchase tax.Analysis:The case involved two petitions disposed of by a common order due to similar facts and legal issues. The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in procuring and selling coffee seeds locally and internationally, claimed entitlement to sales tax concession under a government policy issued in 2003. The petitioner believed that the concession should apply to all taxes payable, not just sales tax. However, the assessing authority ruled that the petitioner was only entitled to sales tax concession, not on purchase tax for raw coffee seeds.The main contention was whether the sales tax concession under the government policy could be extended to cover purchase tax as well. The petitioner argued that the definition of 'tax' under the Act encompassed both sales tax and purchase tax, citing relevant legal precedents. However, the court examined the language of the policy and notification, which explicitly mentioned sales tax exemption/deferral without any reference to purchase tax. The court emphasized that policy decisions are within the domain of the government, and courts have limited authority to interpret or expand the scope of such policies.The court referred to past judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, to support its decision. It highlighted that the government notification clearly specified sales tax exemption, and there was no basis to extend this exemption to purchase tax. Additionally, the court cited local judgments emphasizing the need to interpret exemption notifications strictly without adding or altering their terms. Based on these precedents and the specific language of the policy and notification, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for extending the sales tax concession to cover purchase tax.In conclusion, the court dismissed both petitions, ruling in favor of the respondents and directing each party to bear their respective costs.
TaxTMI 