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>Supreme Court allows review petition within deadline, interpreting tax laws, dismissing application for delay condonation.</h1> <h3>State of Madhya Pradesh and others Versus Surya Roshni Limited</h3> State of Madhya Pradesh and others Versus Surya Roshni Limited - TMI Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing review petition.2. Interpretation of provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. Application of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, 2002.Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Review PetitionThe petitioners filed an application for the review of an order dated 19.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.6653/2011. The Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to approach the High Court for a review petition within eight weeks from the order date. The review petition was entertained on merit as it was filed within the specified time frame, leading to the disposal of the delay condonation application.Issue 2: Interpretation of Provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956The Writ Petition No.6653/2011 challenged the decision regarding the VAT on High Mast Iron Pole under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002. The order under review set aside the VAT charged at 13% under a specific entry, concluding that the product falls under a different entry attracting a 5% tax rate. The court referred to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, which incorporates the provision of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Despite contentions against the application of Section 14 of the 1956 Act, the court held that the clause in Entry 30 covers the entire provision of Section 14, not just a specific clause, as indicated by the comma placement after clause (viii).Issue 3: Application of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the VAT Act, 2002The contention that Section 14 of the 1956 Act is not applicable to the entire Entry 30 but only to a specific clause was rejected. The court emphasized that the clause mentioning Section 14 is inclusive of the entire Entry 30, supported by the historical incorporation of Entry 30 along with clauses (i) to (viii) in the VAT Act 2002. The court affirmed that the reference to the 1956 Act is not erroneous and that Section 14 is explicitly made applicable to Entry 30. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay condonation, statutory interpretation, and the application of specific provisions under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
