Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
M/S. VVS SUGARS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/1999
BENCH:
S.R.Babu,Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,S.P.Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal
JUDGMENT:
BHARUCHA, J. :
We are concerned with the interpretation of Section 21
of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1961, as amended by Act 25 of 1976.
Principally, the provisions to be dealt with are
sub-sections 3D, 4 and 5 of Section 21 which read thus:
(3-D) In relation to the tax levied under sub-section
(1) and in respect of purchase of sugarcane on or after the
date of commencement as aforesaid :-
(a) Sub-sections (4) and (5) shall not apply, and the
tax shall be deemed due date of purchase of sugarcane or the
date of commencement as aforesaid, whichever is later,
(b) Sub-section (3-C) shall apply with the
modification that where the assessing authority is satisfied
that the Occupier of a factory or Owner of Khandasari unit
has removed or cause to be removed any sugar in
contravention of the provision of this section or has failed
to account fully for the sugar produced in the factory or
Khandasari unit or deposited by him under the provision to
sub-section (3), the person liable to pay the tax shall in
addition to the amount payable under sub-section (3) in
respect of the quantity of sugar so removed or caused to be
removed or unaccounted for, be also liable to pay by way of
penalty a further sum not exceeding one hundred percent of
the sum so payable;
(c) The provisions of the sub-section shall be without
prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3-C).
(4) The tax payable under sub-section (1) shall be
levied and collected from the Occupier of the factory or
Owner of the Khandasari unit in such manner and by such
authority as may be prescribed.
(5) Arrears of tax shall carry interest at such rate
as may be prescribed,
The question is whether, subsequent to the said
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
provisions as amended, any interest could be levied on
arrears of tax under sub-rule (4) of Rule 45 of the Andhra
Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules,
1961. Rule 45, so far as it is relevant, reads thus :
45(3) Any amount of tax still remaining unpaid, as
finally arrived at, at the end of the crushing season on the
revised assessment of tax worked out and communicated by the
assessing authority under sub-section (3-B) of Section 21,
shall be treated as arrear under sub-section (5) of Section
21 of the Act.
(4) Such arrears shall carry interest at the rate of
16 percent per annum from the date following the date of
closure of crushing till the amount is finally paid.
The argument on behalf of the appellants is that by
reason of clause (a) of sub-section 3D of Section 21, as
amended, sub-sections (4) & (5) thereof are not to apply in
respect of purchases of sugarcane made on or after the date
of the commencement of the Amending Act, which was 29th
December, 1975; that sub-section (5) of Section 21 was the
provision that required the payment of interest on arrears
of tax; and that, having regard to the inapplicability of
that provision for the relevant period, no interest could be
levied. The High Court in the principal judgment, which was
followed in the subsequent orders, took the view that the
scope of sub-section 3D of Section 21 and its application
was restricted to the crushing season 1975-76 during which
the Amending Act had come into force.
The said Act is a taxing statute and a taxing statute
must be interpreted as it reads, with no additions and no
subtractions, on the ground of legislative intendment or
otherwise.
On the plain wording of clause (a) of sub-section (3D)
of Section 21 of the Act as amended, we find it difficult to
agree with the High Court. The provisions thereof say that
sub-section (5) shall not apply in relation to tax levied
under sub-section (1) of Section 21 on purchase of
sugarcane. The provisions came into force on the date of
the commencement of the Amending Act. The provisions are
open ended and are intended to apply upon the commencement
of the Amending Act with no limitation in time.
This Court in India Carbon Limited & Ors. vs. State
of Assam (1997 (6) SCC 479) has held, after analysing the
Constitution Bench judgment in J.K. Synthetic vs. CTO
(1994 (4) SCC 276), that interest can be levied and charged
on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levies
and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this
behalf. There being no substantive provision in the Act for
the levy of interest on arrears of tax that applied to
purchases of sugarcane made subsequent to the date of
commencement of the Amending Act, no interest thereon could
be so levied, based on the application of the said Rule 45
or otherwise.
The appeals are allowed. The judgments and orders
under appeal are set aside.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
This Court, by order dated 23rd Novemeber, 1983, had
refused stay of the judgment and orders under appeal and had
directed that, in the event the appeals succeeded and the
respondents were held liable to refund the amounts recovered
on account of refusal of stay, the entire amounts should be
refunded within three months from the date of the order with
18% interest from the date of the payment till the amounts
were refunded. The appeals having succeeded, the
respondents shall refund the amounts that the appellants
have paid within three months from today with interest at
the rate
of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the
refund is made. No order as to costs.