LexJ. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 261 J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALI (Civil Appeal No.102 of2010) SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: s.8(5) - Exemption from tax in respect of inter-State sales in terms of notification dated 06.05.1986 - Subsequent notification dated 07. 03.1994 issued with the condition that a dealer making inter-State sales under this notification was not eligible to claim benefit under notification dated 06. 05.1986 - Circular dated 15. 04.1994 issued under notification dated 07: 03.1994 in regard to eligibility for benefit under notification dated 06. 05.1986 as well -Notification dated 07. 03.1994 rescinded by notification dated 12,03.1997 -Notification dated 21.01.2000 stated that dealer claiming benefit under this notification cannot claim benefit under notification dated 06. 05.1986 - Circular dated 16. 04.2001 withdrawing the circular dated 15.04.1994 and purporting to clarify applicability of notification dated 06. 05.1986 vis-a-vis notification dated 07.03.1994 and subsequent notifications dated 12.03.1997 and 21.01.2000 -Plea of assessee that notification dated 07.03.1994 having been re-introduced in the form of notification dated 21.01.2000, circular dated 15.04.1994 would equally apply and guide the interpretation of notification of 21.01.2000 and thus assessee was entitled to simultaneous exemption/benefit under notification dated 06.05.1986 as well as 21.01.2000 - Held: Clause 3 of the notification dated 21.01.2000 clearly lays down that benefit under the two notifications cannot be claimed at the same time - Fact that the third paragraph of the notification dated 21.01.2000 is identically worded to the third paragraph of the notification dated 07. 03.1994 would not justify the applicability of circular dated 15. 04.1994 - Evidently, benefit and advantage was given under circular dated 15. 04.1994 and not under the notification dated 07. 03.1994, which was lucid and couched in different terms - Circular dated 15. 04.1994 was only applicable to notification dated 261 A B c D E F G H 262 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. 07.03.1994 and not specifically applicable to notification dated 21.01.2000 - Once circular dated 15.04.1994 stood withdrawn vide circular dated 16.04.2001, appellant-assessee cannot claim the benefit of the withdrawn circular -Therefore, appe/lant-assessee cannot claim benefit of two notifications at the same tih1e - Notifreation No.F.4(72)FD I Gr. JV/ 81-18, S.O. 23, May 6, 1986 - Notification No.F.4 (8) FD/ Gr.JV/94-70 S.O. No.200, Jaipur, dated March 7, 1994 -Tax policy circular No.2194-95,dated 15.4.1994 - Notification No.97-122 dated 12.03.1997 - Notification No.F.4(1) FD/Tax Div.97-266, Jaipur, dated 21January,2000 - Circular No.F- 16 (Budget) Tax/CCT/94-951119 dated April 16, 2001. Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of 'contemporanea exposition' - Applicability of - Discussed - Held: On facts, the language employed in paragraph 3 of the inter-State tax exemption notification dated 21.01.2000, is not ambiguous or susceptible to two views of interpretations - Language being plain and clear, it does not admit of two different interpretations - Doctrine of contemporanea exposition, therefore, would not apply to the notification dated 21.01.2000. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Notification dated 21.01.2000 applies to a dealer having a place of business in the State and is in respect of sale of cement made by him from any place of business within the State in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Apart from the above, certain other conditions are to be satisfied. They are (a) sales-tax in respect of inter-State sales as per the notification would be calculated at the of 6% and (b) the dealer making inter- State sales under notification dated 21.01.2000 would not be eligible to claim benefit provided in the notification dated 06.05.1986. Clanse 3 of the notification lays down that if a dealer claims benefit under notification dated 21.01.2000, he is not eligible to claim the benefit under notification dated 06.05.1986. Benefit under the two notifications cannot be claimed at the same time. It is simple and clear. (Para 17) (270-H; 271-A-BJ 2. Once circular dated 15.04.1994 stands withdrawn vide circular dated 16.04.2001, the appellant-assessee cannot claim the benefit of the withdrawn circular. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.