LexCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RAJASTHAN versus M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 3 S.C.R. 1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RAJASTHAN V. M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3.36 of 2003) J FEBRUARY 19, 2014 [H.L. DATIU AND S.A .. BOBDE, JJ.] SALES TAX NEW INCENTIVE SCH'EME FOR INDUSTRIES, 1989: " A B c Item 1 E (Annexure C) - New cement industry - Entitlement to exemption under the Scheme - Held: Item 1 E classified the cement units f9r eligibility of tax exemption into three categories; small, medium and large - The said categories are comprehensive whereby small and medium 0 cement unit~ have been prescribed to have maximum Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) of Rs.601- lakhs and Rs.51- crores, respectively and .f Cl of large to be over Rs. 51- crores - As against items 1, , 4, 6 and 7, which deal with units of all ' industries and not only cement, item 1 E restricted to only E cement units and therefore being a special entry override the general provision - In the instant case, the respondent- Company would only be eligible for grant of exemption under Item 1 E as a large new cement unit in accordance with its FCI being above Rs. 51- crores. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: General entry over specific - Held: Where a Statute contains both a general provision as well as specific provision, F the latter must prevail - In other words, where a general statute G and a specific statute relating to the same subject matter cannot be reconciled, the special or specific statute ordinarily will control - The principle finds its origins in the latin maxim of generalia specialibus non derogant, i.e., general law yields 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A to special law should they operate in the same field on same subject. Rule of Harmonious Construction - Conflict between independent provisions of law - Held: When there is an 8 apparent conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail - This rule has application in construction of taxing statutes along with the proposition that the provisions must be given the most beneficial interpretation - While determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principal C subject-matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act - With this basic principle in mind, the provisions must be examined to find out whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the two provisions - Once it is held that intention of the legislation is D to exclude the general provision then the rule "general provision should yield to special provision" is squarely attracted - The rule of statutory construction that the specific governs the general is not an absolute rule but is merely a strong indication of statutory meaning that can be overcome E by textual indications that point in the other direction. The respondent-assessee established a new cement unit within Panchayat Samiti and commenced commercial production in 1997. The total Fixed Capital F Investment (FCI) in the new industrial unit claimed by the respondent was Rs.532.52 crores. The respondent filed an application for grant of eligibility certificate for exemption from payment of central sales tax and Rajasthan sales tax to the State Level Screening G Committee under the "Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989". However, the Screening Committee accepted only Rs.5553.72 Lakhs (Rs.55.32 crores) as FCI eligible for availing the benefits under the Scheme. On the said basis the Screening Committee certified that the respondent company was entitled to avail exemption of H COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RAJASTHAN v. MIS 3 BINANI CEMENT LTD. & ANR. tax to the extent of 25% of the tax liability by treating the A same to be a Large Scale Industry. In the appeal, the Board took the view that since the respondent has invested more than Rs.25 crores and has employed more than 250 workmen, it has the status of 'New Prestigious Unit' and thus, falls within the definition of a Prestigious B Unit and should be governed by Item 4 of Annexure ·c· and entitled to avail 75% of total tax liability. This view was accepted by the High Court, while dismissing the tax revision petition filed by the revenue. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the C revenue that the respondent-new unit being New Cement Unit and further being large scale unit is entitled to the benefit of the incentive scheme under 1 E of Annexure 'C'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.