TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide order dated April 19, 2007 and further upheld by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, vide order dated July 10, 2008. 2. The petitioner's contention throughout was that the petitioner's sale in question was the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of the articles which have been notified in the notification dated January 30, 1993. The notification dated January 30, 1993 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. By this notification, it has been provided that for all sales in course of inter-State trade or commerce irrespective of the buyers-whether it is Government or it is a registered dealer or unregistered dealer-if made of the articles mentioned in the notification dated January 30, 1993, then the rate of sales tax will be four per cent in place of regular higher rate of tax. However, the petitioner's said contention was rejected by all the three authorities, i.e., assessing officer, appellate authority and the Tribunal and it has been held that for taking any benefit of the notification dated January 30, 1993, the dealer is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of Bihar reported in [2007] 9 VST 444 (Patna), wherein the scope of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has been considered in detail and in Rameshwara Jute Mills case [2007] 9 VST 444 (Patna), the case of Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC) was also considered and it has been held that when there is no restriction in the notification issued under section 8(5) and when there is no requirement of furnishing of form, in that situation, demanding for any form from the dealer in the State is contrary to the requirement of the notification. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court delivered in yet another case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2000] 117 STC 395 (SC) in support of his argument. The learned counsel further relied upon yet another judgment of the Madras High Court delivered in the case of Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1998] 109 STC 205 (Mad). 4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that taxing provision is subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and one i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; and (c) in the case of goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally shall be nil, and for the purpose of making any such calculation under clause (a) or clause (b), any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. (2A). . . (3) . . . (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale is to a registered dealer other than the Government. A perusal of sub-section (2) of section 8 will reveal that it covers the sales which are not covered by sub-section (1), meaning thereby if the sale is not to the Government and not to the registered dealer obviously then it may be a sale to anybody who is not a registered dealer. In subsection (1), there is a different rate of tax and it is four per cent of the turnover of the seller or the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law applicable to the State, whichever is lower. Sub-section (2) prescribes different rate of tax and as per clause (a) under sub-section (2) of section 8, for a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling under sub-section (1) and if it is of declared goods, it shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State. As per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8, in the case of goods other than declared goods, it shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be calculated at the rate of four per centum. 2. Notification No. S.O. 40, dated February 26, 1992 (See [1992] 87 STC Statutes 109.) is hereby cancelled. 3. This notification shall come into force from February 1, 1993." 10. This notification nowhere has restricted itself to either of the provisions under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 8 and this notification in an unambiguous and clear language declared that the reduced rate of tax will be applicable to the sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of the articles mentioned in the notification. Learned counsel for the State also could not dispute this position and fairly admitted that this notification applies to sub-sections (1) and (2) both. 11. In that fact-situation, we may consider the judgment of honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC), which has been relied upon by the learned Tribunal for holding that the petitioner was required to submit form C. In Sarvotam Vegetables Products case [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC), the writ petitioner's contention was that since the inter-State sale effected by the petitioner was covered by the exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under sub-section (1), then also he would not have any benefit merely by virtue of the notification dated January 30, 1993, which also provides for levy of four per cent tax. It is also submitted that the notification in question has been issued to cover the sale under sub-section (2); otherwise this notification would have no effect at all. The higher rate of tax is only under sub-section (2) and the rate is higher for the sales not falling under sub-section (1) and the rate of tax for the sales falling under sub-section (2) of the goods other than the declared goods is equal to the rate as provided under the notification dated January 30, 1993. It is also submitted that if the petitioner would have furnished C forms, his case would not have fallen under sub-section (2). It is also submitted that the Revenue has not questioned the nature of transaction and it is undisputedly the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and therefore, by virtue of the notification dated January 30, 1993, all sales whether under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are covered by the notification dated January 30, 1993 and there can be levy of tax at the rate of four per cent per annum onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sub-section (5) of section 8 whereunder it has been issued, are self-contained notifications/provisions. Section 8(5) empowers the State Government to grant exemption subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose in public interest. The notifications do impose certain conditions. They do not provide that production of a C form is essential for availing of the benefit of the notification. If so, no such condition should be read into notification . . ." 14. It is clear from the above that under section 8(5), while granting exemption, the Government can impose condition and honourable Supreme Court held that if they do not provide any condition, then no such condition should be read into the notification. Here in the present case, as we have already observed that there is no condition in the notification and there could not have been any condition of producing form C or D for sales covered under sub-section (2). 15. In the case of Rameshwara Jute Mills [2007] 9 VST 444 (Patna), by the notification, concessional tax was granted for the transactions covered under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in that notification, there ....