M/S KUMAR DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD./BELTEK INDIA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 17-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS KUMAR DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD./BELTEK INDIA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1995 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Bihar Finance Act, 1981 : 
Ss.2(x), 6, 7(3), 21, Notifications No. S.O, 92 and S.0.94 dated 
C 
18.1.1988--Granting exemption from levy of sales tax/purchase tax on electric · 
raw materials and to electronic units-Assessee claiming exemption from levy 
of additional tax payable under s.6-Held-Exemption Notifications do not 
cover ch01ge of additional tax payable under s.6. 
The appellants were dealers and manufacturers of television sets, 
D 
watches and mixers, in the State of Bihar. The State Government, with a 
view to encourage industries in the State, in exercise of powers under s.7(3) 
of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 issued notifications no. S.0.92 and S.0.94 
dated 18.1.1988, respectively, exempting from levy of sales tax/purchase 
tax, the sales of electronic raw materials to the owner of electronic units; 
E 
and granting exemptions from levy of sales tax on sales of electronic goods 
manufactured by electronic industrial units, approved and registered by 
the department of Industries, Government of Bihar or the competent 
authority of Government of India, for a period of five years with effect from 
1.9.1986 subject to conditions imposed therein. 
F 
For the assessment year 1989-90, the appellants, relying upon the 
notifications, claimed exemption from the levy of additional tax payable 
under s.6 of the Act, which was refused by the assessing authority. The 
appellants challenged the orders by filing writ petitions under Articles 
226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court, which dismissed the 
G writ petitions holding that the appellants were liable to pay additional tax 
and were not entitled to claim exemption from payment of addith~nal tax 
on the basis of exemption notifications issued under Section 7(3) of the 
Act. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeals by special leave. 
It was contended by the appellants that in view of the definition of 
H 'tax' in s.2 (x) and 'taxable turnover' in s.21 of the Act,·the appellants were, 
788 
KUMAR DIS1RIBUTORS (P) LTD. v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.) 789 
entitled to claim exemption from payment of additional tax under the A 
notifications issued under Section 7(2) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD.: The exemption notifications issued under Section 7(3) of the 
Bihar Finan.ce Act, 1981, will not cover charge of additional tax payment B 
under s.6, to enable the appellants to claim exemption from payment of 
additional tax. Section 6 of the Act makes it crystal clear that so far as 
charge of additional tax is concerned, this section is self-contained not only 
for charging additional tax but also for its exemption, in addition to s.7(3) 
which provides for exemption from levy of 'sales tax' and 'purchase tax'. C 
The non obstante clause in Section 6 also overrides section 7(3) and 
Section 21 of the Act expressly. [794-B-D] 
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. 
Etc. Etc., [1992) Supp. 2 SCC 178 and State of Kamataka v. Sunagar, 
Brothers, [1993) 3 sec 16 cited. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7316-17 
of J995. 
From the Judgment and order dated 16.12.92 of the Patna High 
Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 622 & 1113 of 1992. 
E 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant. 
S.B. Sanyal and B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted. 
A common question of law arises for consideration in these two 
appeals. That question of law can be set out in the following words : 
F 
G 
Whether an exemption notification published under Section 7(3) of 
Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred for short as the 'Act') will 
also cover exemption from charge of additional tax levied under Section 6 
~ 
of the Act. 
Brief facts are the following : 
H 
A 
B 
c 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
The appellant in the first case was a dealer in television sets, watches 
and mixers. The appellant in the second case is a manufacturer of television 
sets in the State of Bihar. The State Government with a view to encourage 
industries in the State from time to time announced various schemes 
granting in~entives in the form of exemption from sales tax or purchase tax 
as the case maybe. One such notification bearing No. S.O. 92 dated 18.1.88 
was issued under the express provision of Section 7(3) of the act exem

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