2020 (5) TMI 530 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court affirms authority to reassess tax exemption based on change of opinion

The court upheld the assessing authority's jurisdiction and power to reassess based on a change of opinion regarding an exemption notification. It ... Revision of order - change of opinion - Notification No.A-5-1-94/ST-V (55) dated 30.03.1994 - section 9 (2) of Central Tax Act, 1956 read with section 19 (1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - exemption from payment of tax granted on “all kinds of footwear made of PVC and chappals made of rubber and straps there of the sale price of which did not exceed ₹ 50/- per pair”. Whether proper interpretation has been done by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board by holding that the notification was not general to class of goods, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled for the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? HELD THAT:- The notification in the present case exempting all kind of footwear made of PVC, chappals made of rubber and straps there of the sale price of which does not exceed ₹ 50/- per pair, can never said to be a general exemption, as it is conditioned by specified circumstances - the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board was justified in holding that the exemption granted from payment of tax is not a general exemption and the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The questions of law are accordingly, answered in affirmative. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and power of the assessing authority under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.2. Interpretation of the exemption notification dated 30.03.1994 and its applicability under Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Power of the Assessing AuthorityThe first question of law addressed whether the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board was right in holding that the assessing authority had jurisdiction and power under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, to review and revise its own order of assessment based on a change of opinion regarding the interpretation of the Notification No.A-5-1-94/ST-V (55) dated 30.03.1994. The court upheld that the assessing authority did have such jurisdiction and power, emphasizing that the reassessment was permissible under the legal provisions cited.Issue 2: Interpretation and Applicability of the Exemption NotificationThe second question of law involved whether the Appellate Board was correct in holding that the exemption from payment of tax granted under the notification dated 30.03.1994 was not general to a class of goods, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Facts and Proceedings:The assessee, a manufacturer of footwear, claimed exemption from tax under the notification dated 30.03.1994, which exempted 'all kinds of footwear made of PVC and chappals made of rubber and straps thereof the sale price of which did not exceed Rs. 50/- per pair.' The assessing authority initially accepted this claim but later issued a notice under Section 9(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, leading to a reassessment that denied the exemption. The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board, prompting the reference to the High Court.Court's Analysis:The court examined several precedents to determine the nature of the exemption. It noted that the exemption was conditional, as it applied only to footwear priced below Rs. 50 per pair, and thus did not constitute a general exemption. The court cited multiple judgments, including:- Nayan Sukh Through Partner Mahmood Alam, Satna v/s Commercial Tax Officer Circle 2: The court held that exemptions limited by specific conditions do not qualify as general exemptions.- Manish Plastics v/s Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka: The court emphasized that circulars or clarifications by the government are not binding on courts and cannot override statutory provisions.- Royal PVC Shoes Private Limited v/s The State of Rajasthan: The court ruled that exemptions subject to specific conditions are not general exemptions.- Commissioner of Sales Tax, J & K & Others v/s Pine Chemicals Limited: The court discussed the distinction between general and conditional exemptions.- Sivanesan Company v/s Commercial Tax Officer: The court reiterated that exemptions dependent on specific conditions are not considered general exemptions.Conclusion:The court concluded that the exemption notification in question was conditional and not general. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The questions of law were answered in the affirmative, and the tax references were disposed of accordingly.