Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 926 of 2007
PETITIONER:
M/s Vividh Marbles Pvt. Ltd
RESPONDENT:
Commercial Tax Officer
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2007
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) 17056 of 2006]
S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave granted.
The State of Rajasthan pursuant to its industrial policy formulated
’Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987’ (for short, ’1987 Scheme’) and ’Sales
Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989’ (for short, ’1989 Scheme) .
In terms of 1987 Scheme exemption from payment of sales tax of 100%
was provided. 1989 Scheme which was notified in the Official Gazette on
or about 06.07.1989 was given retrospective operation with effect from
05.03.1987. It was to remain in force upto 31.03.1998. Sub-clause (b) of
Clause (1) of 1989 Scheme reads as under :
(b) An industrial Unit, other than the new industrial
unit covered by 1985 Dispensation, being covered by the
Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as the Old Incentive Scheme)
shall have an alternative option to seek the benefits under
the New Incentive Scheme."
Clause 4 of the said Scheme which is relevant for our purpose, reads
as under :
" 4. Exemption from tax on sales \026 (a) An industrial
unit, which is granted eligibility certificate under this
notification shall be exempted from payment of tax on
sales made within the State of the goods manufactured by
it in accordance with the parameters incorporated in
Annexure "C" to this notification.
\005 \005 \005 \005
(b) for the purpose of arriving at the limit of tax
exemption as provided in Annexure "C" the aggregate of
the following shall be considered \026
(i) Aggregate amount of tax which would have been
leviable under the provisions of the RST Act 1954;
(ii) Aggregate amount of tax on inter-State sales which
would have been leviable under the provisions of the
CST Act, 1956; and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
(iii) Aggregate amount of tax, as and when levied, on
consignments.
\005 \005 \005 \005
(d) When the limit of tax exemption prescribed in
Annexure "C" is exhausted, all sales thereafter shall be
subject to tax under the Act by the assessing authority
concerned.
(e) The Incentive available under this Scheme shall be
subject to the condition that the beneficiary industrial
unit after having availed of any benefit under this
Scheme shall not make sales outside the State including
branch transfers of the goods manufactured by it
exceeding 60% in case of SSI, Medium and Large units
and 80% in case of Pioneering and Prestigious units and
90% in case of Very Prestigious Units of its total
production."
Appellant herein was eligible to obtain the benefits of the said
Industrial Policy both under 1987 and 1989 Schemes. It, however, opted for
1989 Scheme, wherefor an application for grant of sanction of eligibility
certificate was filed before the Manager, District Industries Centre,
Rajsamand on 01.04.1995. Indisputably, the eligibility certificate was to be
granted by the Industries Department of the State. The said certificate was
granted on 07.12.1996, pursuant whereto exemption from tax liability was
limited to 75%.
Contending, however, that it had altered its position on a
representation made by the State that 1987 Scheme would be applicable in
its case, the appellant alleged that it had not realized sales-tax from its
customers. In support of the said contention, it inter-alia relied upon an
order of sanction of eligibility for grant of exemption/deferment issued by
the Member Secretary of the Department to the Commercial Taxes Officer,
Rajsamand, which is in the following terms :
"The application has been prima-facie found eligible for the benefit
of exemption from tax/deferment of tax on the basis of ’A Industrial
Unit’/’ a New Unit covered by 1985 dispensation/a sick Industrial
Unit/ Expansion/ Diversification / under sales tax Incentive/
Deferment Scheme 1987/1989 under PST and / or C.S.T. Act’ on
the sale of Marble Slabs.
Hence a formal eligibility certificate as per law be granted to the
said applicant. The application filled by the unit was completed in
all respect on 6.5.95.
The eligible fixed capital Investment as determined by the
committee which is subject to verification as per law is as follows :-
a. Cost of land : ________
b. Cost of new building : 9.49
c. Cost of new plant and
machinery or imported second : 57.00
land machinery
d. Installation expenditure capitalized
for P & M : ________
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
e. Capitalized interest during construction
not exceeding 5% of the total fixed
capital investment : ________
f. Technical know-how fees or drawing
fees paid Laboratories recognized by
the State Govt. or the
Central Government : ________
Total : 66.49
A copy of eligibility certificate issued by you may also please be
sent to this office. "
Reliance has also been placed on the order of assessment passed by
the Assessing Authority of the Commercial Taxes Department, wherein also
exemption had been stated to have been granted in terms of 1987 Scheme, a
sample copy whereof reads as under :
"5. Sale under Incentive Scheme
From 6.5.95 to 5.5.2003 under the Incentive Scheme,
1987 the assessee has already been allowed a heavy tax
exemption of Rs. 3,11,250.00. Eligibility Certificate
No. 1/354 has been issued to the Assessee.
Under the Incentive Scheme, 1987 the assesse has made
a sale of marbles slab of Rs. 5,42,063. On this sales tax
@ 16 percent of Rs. 86,730 is being imposed and being
deducted from eligible amounts received under the
Incentive Scheme."
The mistake of the Assessing Authority, however, having been
discovered, the appellant was issued with a notice to show cause as to why
it should not pay the balance sales-tax on 25% of its turnover. A writ
petition filed thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by reason of
the impugned judgment.
Mr. M.L. Verma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, would submit that in view of the representation made by the
respondent, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the appellant had
not collected any tax from the customers, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. In any event, it was urged that no penalty or interest should be
levied on the said amount.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however,
supported the impugned judgment.
It is not in dispute that the State formulated two Schemes; one in the
year 1987 and another in 1989. The said Schemes provided for different
nature of incentives. Although 1989 Scheme was framed during pendency
of 1987 Scheme, as noticed hereinbefore, the same was given a retrospective
operation in terms whereof the entrepreneurs were given a choice to opt
either for 1987 Scheme or 1989 Scheme. Appellant was aware thereabout.
It opted for 1989 Scheme. The sanction of eligibility provided that a formal
eligibility certificate as per law would be granted to the appellant. The
investment for capital, however, was determined at Rs.66.49 lacs. The said
sanction did not amount to a grant of a certificate. The eligibility certificate,
as indicated hereinbefore, was granted only on 07.12.1996, in terms whereof
clearly 1989 Scheme was applied. It was so explicitly stated in the
eligibility certificate also. It may be true that the Assessing Authority
committed a mistake in referring to the 1987 Scheme in its order of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
assessment, but thereby the appellant cannot be permitted to derive any
benefit to which it was not entitled under the law. Appellant indisputably
was eligible for grant of exemption in terms of both the Schemes. It had
opted for the latter Scheme. While doing so, it must have taken into
consideration the benefits under both the Schemes separately. Having opted
for the 1989 Scheme, in our opinion, now the appellant cannot be permitted
to turn round and contend that it should have been granted the benefit of
1987 Scheme, only because at a later stage it found the same to be more
beneficial.
A contention was raised that the eligibility certificate dated
07.12.1996 was communicated on 02.07.2003. No. such contention was
raised before the High Court. Before the High Court, the principal
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were : (i) It being eligible for
grant of exemption under both the Schemes, it preferred to avail of 100%
exemption under 1987 Scheme; (ii) Notices seeking recovery of 25% tax
liability was contrary to the order of assessment; and (iii) Respondent cannot
now be permitted to change its opinion to allow only 75% exemption under
1989 Scheme, because for all practical purposes it had availed and had been
granted exemption under 1987 Scheme.
There had been no representation whatsoever on behalf of the
respondent that the appellant would be entitled to exemption under 1987
Scheme. The eligibility certificate was to be granted and in fact granted by
the Industries Department. The Sales Tax Authorities, therefore, were
merely to pass an order of assessment on the basis thereof.
The order of sanction being in a printed proforma referred to both the
1987 and 1989 Schemes. It was issued only for the purpose of
determination of the fixed capital investment. It had nothing to do with the
grant of eligibility certificate. If the Assessing Authority committed a
mistake in referring to 1987 Scheme and allowed 100% exemption in terms
thereof, the State cannot suffer thereby. The statutory authorities are
entitled to rectify their mistake. When such mistakes are apparent on the
face of the records even no opportunity of hearing is necessary., [See
Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Hariprasad Drupadrao Jhadao
& Another \026 (2006) 3 SCC 690]
Appellant having opted for grant exemption under 1989 Scheme, the
respondent was bound to accept the same and, thus, it had not committed
any illegality in doing so. In that view of the matter, in our considered
view, the appellant who is estopped and precluded from raising a contention
contrary to or inconsistent with its assertion for grant of exemption.
Reliance has been placed by Mr. Verma on Indian Cement and Others
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(1988) 1 SCC 743], West Bengal
Hosiery Association and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [(1988) 4
SCC 134]; and British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and
Another [(1999) 1 SCC 170].
In West Bengal Hosiery Association (supra), the question which arose
for consideration was as to whether the levy of sales-tax on goods imported
into one State from another may affect the free flow of trade and commerce
and, thus, attract Article 301 of the Constitution of India. Such a question
does not arise herein.
In Indian Cement (supra) preference to local manufacturers was held
to be ultra vires Part XIII of the Constitution of India.
In British Physical Lab India Ltd. (supra), it was opined that it was
just and equitable not to permit the State to collect the differential amount.
The said decision again has no application in the instant case.
Mr. Verma then submitted that at least a direction should be issued
that the appellant is not liable to pay any interest or any penalty. We do not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
see as to how in a case of this nature such a direction can be issued.
Appellant herein knew the actual state of affairs. It at all material times was
aware of the extent of its entitlement thereto, which was confined to the
benefits under the 1989 Scheme. However, despite such knowledge if it
had not recovered any tax, it must thank itself therefor.
Furthermore, the question as to whether the appellant did show it bona
fide or not is a question of fact. Such a contention can be raised only in an
appropriate proceeding and not before us for the first time. Reliance placed
on Shree Cement Ltd. and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others [(2000)
1 SCC 765] is misplaced. Therein, again dicta in Indian Cement (supra)
and Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. and Others v. State of Rajasthan and
Others [(2000) 1 SCC 688] was followed In this case, there is no direction
to the respondent-State to recover the difference in tax.
In State of Rajasthan and Another v. J.K. Udiapur Udyog Ltd. and
Another [(2004) 7 SCC 673], whereupon again strong reliance has been
placed, the Court held that no penalty or interest should be charged, as the
said proceeding had been remained pending. Such a direction was issued by
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, having regard to the fact that the lis was finally determined by this
Court. The fact of the present case, in our opinion, is completely different,
as applicability of the Schemes in question depended upon the volition of the
appellant, wherewith the respondent had nothing to do.
For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which
is dismissed accordingly, with costs. Counsel’s fee is assessed at
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).