TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght in law in holding tht the assessing authority had jurisdiction and power u/s 9 (2) of Central Tax Act, 1956 read with section 19 (1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and review and revise his own order of assessment on a change of opinion of the interpretation of the Notification No.A-5-1-94/ST-V (55) dated 30.03.1994 and pass a reassessment order under the Central Sales Tax, 1956 ? Question No.2 Whether, the Appellate Board was right in law in holding that the 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 Rs. 50/- per pair" under Notification dated 30.03.1994 issued u/s 12 of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was not general to a class of goods and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Sec. 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?" 03. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee in the present case is a manufacturer of footwear and an assessment order was passed on 06.02.1998. The assessee has availed the benefit of notification dated 30.03.1994 and its contention is that the assessee is m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.02.1995 (W.P. No.16446/1991), Royal PVC Shoes Private Limited v/s The State of Rajasthan & Another dated 17.01.2002 (Civil Special Appeal No.1152/2000), Commissioner of Sales Tax, J & K & Others v/s Pine Chemicals Limited v/s Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 58 and Sivanesan Company v/s Commercial Tax Officer, Purasawalkam Assst. Circle, Chenni reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6406. 09. In the case of Nayan Sukh (supra), this Court in paragraph - 10 has held as under:- "10. In the back ground of the law declared by the Supreme Court as also the Judgment of Karnataka High Court in Manish Plastics Case (supra) I find that the goods in question cannot be said to have been exempted from payment State Sales Tax generally as the exemption have been granted under specified condition. Exemption is limited to the spectacles and other items valued at Rs. 50/- only. Therefore, in my opinion, the exemption is operative under specified condition. Further, I find that for attracting the provisions of Sec. 8(2-A) of the Central Act, the goods generally exempted from payment of the State Sales Tax, would mean, exemption not dependent upon any circumstances or condition. Here, the exemption un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered within the term cast iron including ingot moulds, occurring in item 2 of the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Section 42 of the Andhra Act empowered the Government to remove difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the said Act. Reliance upon the clarification issued by the Government was placed by the petitioner/assessee in the said case in support of its claim that case iron castings were included in cast iron. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court however repelled this argument holding that clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government or a State Government simply represented their understanding of the statutory provisions, and that any such circulars or clarifications were not binding upon the courts nor was there any estoppel against law. Their Lordships observed thus : "So far as clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and/or State Government are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the courts. It is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption under Section 8(2-A) is claimed, is related to such footwears which are not made of leather and whose value is only upto Rs. 100/-. Therefore, such inter-State turnover is entitled to claim such exemption and no tax under CST is liable to be imposed. 39. Reference to a decision of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal in M/s. Ajay Polymers (P.) Ltd. (supra) has been made in Assessment Order. Said judgment relates to period during which Notification dt. 7.11.88 was in force. The notification which was in force for the period in question was not before the Tribunal. I fact it does not refer to any other judgment than the II Pine Chemical's case, without referring to contents of Notification. The decision in M/s. Ajay Polymers (P) Ltd. has no relevance in considering the notification dt. 7.3.94. As noticed by us, the question whether any goods, or class of goods or a category of goods are exempt from tax or subjected to lower rate of tax generally or such exemption or concession in rate is subject to certain specified conditions or in specified circumstances, has to be determined with reference to particular notification issued under State Sales Tax Law before arriving at conclus....