SAREE SANSAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The appellant assessee has taken exception to the judgment dtd. 19/10/2006 passed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court. In the exercise of powers under Sec. 4(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (the DST Act), the Government of Delhi issued a notification on 31/3/1999 stating that the rate of the State sales tax on silk fabrics was fixed at 3%. On 15/1/2000, another notification was issued by which silk fabric was included in Schedule I of the DST Act. Therefore, the State sales tax on silk fabric was increased to 12%. On 31/3/2000, silk fabric was shifted from Schedule I to Schedule II of the DST Act by amending the Schedules. Therefore, the sales tax became payable on silk fabric at 4%. An assessment order was issued to the appellant on 31/10/2001 for the levy of the State sales tax at the rate of 12% for the period from 15/1/2000 to 31/3/2000. The amount demanded was Rs.4,22,095.00.

(2.) The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court to challenge the order of assessment. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (the ADE Act). He submitted that the item "Silk Sarees" falls under item no.50.05 of the First Schedule to the ADE Act. Since "Silk Sarees" fall in the category of "declared goods" under the ADE Act, the Delhi Government was not empowered to levy State sales tax on the said goods. He submitted that under the scheme of the ADE Act, the additional duties are levied on declared goods in lieu of the sales tax and after deducting 2.203% of the total proceeds for distribution to the Union Territories, the remaining proceeds are distributed among the States as per the prescribed percentage. He relied upon Articles 266 and 269 of the Constitution of India, containing the scheme of collection and distribution of net proceeds of taxes and duties received by the Government of India under the Consolidated Fund. He submitted that Article 269(2) makes it very clear that the proceeds attributable to the Union Territories are kept aside and would not form a part of the Consolidated Funds of India. He urged that Delhi was getting its share of ADE at the relevant time. Hence, the Delhi Government was debarred from levying sales tax on "Silk Sarees". He submitted that the ADE Act has been brought on the statute book to bring uniformity in the duty/tax throughout the country on the "goods of special importance". He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2005) 2 SCC 515 and submitted that no State is entitled to levy sales tax when it is entitled to share proceeds under the ADE Act. He relied upon paragraph 6 of a decision of this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Attesee, (1989) Supp.1 SCC 733 to support his contention that the Delhi Government was not entitled to levy sales tax on silk sarees. He submitted that the fact that "silk fabric" was deleted from the list contained in Sec. 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act) is entirely irrelevant. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that in view of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 15 of the CST Act, the Government of Delhi cannot claim sales tax over 4%. Therefore, he would urge that the levy of the sales tax at the rate of 12% is certainly bad in law.