TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, In charge, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur, dated 21.3.2005 in respect of the assessment year 2000 01, levying a tax on sale of the goods in course of inter State trade and commerce by the writ petitioner assessee @ 10% and @14.43% rejecting the petitioner's claim of concessional rate under the Notification No. S O 27 dated 30.1.1993, which was upheld by the order passed by the appellate authority, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, vide order dated 19 th April, 2007 and further upheld by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, vide order dated 10.7.2008.

(2.) The petitioner's contention throughout was that the petitioner's sale in question was the sale in the course of interState trade or commerce, of the articles which have been notified in the notification dated 30.1.1993. The notification dated 30.1.1993 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (B) of subsection (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 interState 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 30.1.1993, then the rate of sale tax will be 4% 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 30.1.1993, the dealer is required to submit Form C or D as the case may be and the petitioner should have furnished Form C without which it is not entitled to the benefit of the notification and consequently the petitioner has been levied with tax @ 10%/14.43% creating a total liability of Rs.54,96,61,740/.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that all these three authorities committed serious error of law in interpreting the notification dated 30.1.1993 and ignored the fact that the notification was issued under subsection (5) of section 8, which has overriding effect over other provisions of section 8 in view of the non obstante clause and which specifically provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in this section" (section 8), the State Government may grant any exemption in tax in respect of the sales by the dealer, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, if imposed, obviously under subsection (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is submitted that the notification unqualifiedly has covered all sales in the course of interState trade or commerce of the commodities mentioned in the notification dated 30.1.1993 and is not related to specific buyer i.e., Government or registered dealers only but it includes unregistered dealers. It is further submitted that Form C & D is required by subsection (4) of section 8 only when the sale falls under subsection (1) of section 8 and and for the sales covered under subsection (2) of section 8, no Form is required and one is required to prove that the sale in question is the sale in course of interState trade or commerce obviously, by other evidence than Form C & D and that the notification dated 30.1.1993 no where says that it shall have application only to the sales made under subsection (1) of section 8.