Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rubber processing oil fell within the entry for petroleum products in the relevant notification so as to attract entry tax, and whether the reassessment and clarification levying such tax could be sustained.
Analysis: The Notification dated 30.03.2002 specifically enumerated petroleum products such as lubricating oil, transformer oil, brake fluid or clutch fluid, bitumen and tar and others, but did not mention rubber processing oil. In a taxing statute, liability cannot be imposed by intendment or presumption, and only what is clearly brought within the charging entry can be taxed. Since the product did not find place in the relevant entry, and no reasons were assigned in the clarification dated 05.12.2012, the levy could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The levy of entry tax on rubber processing oil was not justified and the challenge to the reassessment succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The intra-court appeal was rejected and the order quashing the levy of entry tax on rubber processing oil was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A product cannot be subjected to entry tax unless it is clearly covered by the relevant taxing entry, and fiscal liability cannot be created by presumption, implication or intendment.