M/S JK SYNTHETICS AND ANR. ETC. versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANR

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 28-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S.P. BHARUCHA, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
MIS. J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANR. 
JANUARY 28, 1997 
IA.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. 
VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Sales T(J)..---<.:entral Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 8(5}-Rajasthan Sales 
Tax Act, 1954--Section 4--Notifications exempting payment of sales tax-On 
A 
B 
tyre cord fabric-Departmellf contending State notification issued in 1958 C 
under the State Act superseded earlier notification issued under Central Act 
in 1957-Subsequent notification by State under Central Act in 1981 rescinding 
all earlier notifications-Held, the word 'notifications' meant that earlier 1957 
notification held the field till resi::inded expressly in 1981-Department cannot 
contend that the 1981 notification was issued without application of mind. 
The respondent assessee (in C.A. No. 3381/93) is a manufacturer of 
tyre cord fabric covered by the term 'textile'. As per notification issued by 
State of Rajasthan in 'December 1957 under Section 8(5) of the Central 
Sales Tax Act, 1956, no tax was payable on certain items including textiles 
in the course. of inter State trade by a registered dealer having his place 
of business in the State. Subsequently in 1980, the State issued a notifica· 
tion under section 4(2) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954, unconditionally 
exempting payment of tax on sale of all varieties of textiles. In 1964, the 
State Government introduced Entry 18 to the Scheduled under Section 4 
of the Act 1954 wherein all fabrics were exempted from tax. 
In January 1981, the State Government again issued a notification 
by virtue of powers under Section 8(5) of the Act of 1956, whereby all prior 
notifications in respect of sale of tyre cord fabrics in so far as they relate 
to the sales made in the course of inter-State trade, were superseded. 
D 
E 
F 
On a challenge to the applicability of the notification, the Board of G 
Revenue held in favour of the assessee. The writ petition, challenging the 
same was dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court, Revenue 
contended that the notifications issued in December 1957, were superseded 
by notification issued in July 1958, issued under the provisions of the State 
Act and by insertion of Entry 18 in the Schedule to the State Act in 1964, H 
603 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A and that the notification issued by the State in 1958 implicitly rescinded 
the notification issued in December 1957 under the Central Act. 
-~ ~ 
Disposing of the appeal and the connected matters, the Court 
HELD : 1. The notification issued in January 1981, stated that the 
B State Government, being satisfied that it was in the public interest so to 
do, directed that "all the notifications' issued under Section 8(5) in respect 
of sales of tyre core fabric made in the course of inter-state trade or 
commerce by any dealer having his place of business in the State from such 
place of business should stand superseded. It will be noted that the phrase 
C used is "all the notifications". The phrase, using the plural, covers not only 
the notification dated 12th August, 1980, but also the only other notifica-
tion that meets the requirements, being the said notification dated 4th 
December, 1957. The State Government, therefore, acted upon the basis 
that the said notification dated 14th December, 1957, issued under Section 
8(5) of the Central Act, was in force on 2nd January, 1981. The appellant, 
D its officer, cannot be heard to cantend that the •erms of the notification 
date~ 2nd January, 1981, were the result of non-application of mind and 
that the said notification dated 14th December, 1957, had stood impliedly 
rescinded long before 2nd January, 1981. [614-B-D] 
E 
2. In one of the connected appeals filed by the assessee (C.A. No. 
F 
1757 of 1982) it is seen that challenge was made to provisional assessment 
orders and amendment was sought for challenging the final assessment. 
The amendm1°1t was refused by the High Court. There is no valid ground 
for rejection of the amendment application. Since in respect of one assess-
ment year the assessee had filed a statutory appeal it is proper that even 
for tlie remaining year the assessee should file a statutory appeal. The bar 
of limitation shall not be raised or considered and the appeal shall be 
disposed of on merits if filed within 12 weeks. [615-B-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 
G 1982 .Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.81

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.