PRADIP NANJEE GALA versus SALES TAX OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 29-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]5S.C.R.141 
PRADIP NANJEE GALA 
v. 
SALES TAX OFFICER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4542 of 2007) 
APRIL29,2015 
[H. L. DATTU, CJI., S. A. BOBDE AND 
A 
B 
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
C 
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959- ss.18 and 45 rlw rr. 
43A, 44 and 44A of Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 -
Assessment of assessee-firm - Claim of the appellant (one 
of the partners of the assessee-firm) that his offer for settling D 
his individual liability as a partner was accepted by the 
Minister of the State and accordingly he paid his individual 
dues - Therefore, he was not liable to pay the dues of the 
assessee-firm - Writ petition of the appellant dismissed by 
High Court - On appeal, held: There is no provision under E 
the Act or the Rules empowering the State Government or 
the Commissioner to enter into a settlement with an individual 
partner regarding his liability in respect of the dues payable 
by the assessee-firm - The appellant cannot be discharged 
from his obligation to pay the sales tax dues payable by the 
F 
assess-firm -
Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 - rr. 43A, 44 
and44A. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of taxing 
statutes - Held: Equity cannot be read into while interpreting G 
a taxing statue - Equity. 
Words and Phrases - 'Prescribed' - Meaning of, in 
the context of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 
141 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 45 of the Bombay Sales Tax 
Act, 1959 would indicate that the legislature has vested 
the power of remission of tax only with the 
B Commissioner and subjected the exercise of said power 
in accordance with such circumstances and conditions 
as prescribed by the State Government under the 
Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The Section neither 
speakii of any power to enter into a settlement for such 
C purposes by the State Minister of Finance nor prescribes 
exercise of powers by the Commissioner in the light of 
any such settlement. [para 14] [149-D-F] 
1.2 Section 18 of the Act specifically provides that 
D the liability of a partner in respect of the dues payable 
by the firm is joint and several. But for Section 45 of the 
Act which permits remission of the tax payable by the 
dealer, that is, the assessee-Firm, there is no provision 
under the Act empowering the State Government or the 
E Commissioner to enter into a settlement with an 
individual partner regarding his liability in respect of the 
dues payable by the assessee-Firm. Further, the Rules 
relevant to the exercise of power of remission by the 
F Commissioner under the Act viz., Rules 43A, 44 and 44A 
. also do not provide any condition with respect to 
remission of sales tax under the Act by entering into any 
settlement, more so a settlement for the payment of 
individual liability of partners under the partnership deed. 
G Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision 
contained in the Act or the Rules, there could be no 
settlement with an individual partner so as to discharge 
him from his obligation to pay the sales tax dues payable 
by the assessee-Firm. [para 15] [149-G-H; 150-A-C] 
H 
PRADIP NANJEE GALA v. SALES TAX OFFICER & ORS. 143 
1.3 The present statute clearly and expressly A 
provides for the limitation on exercise of powers of 
remission by the Commissioner and mandates them to 
be exercised only "in such circumstances and subject 
to such conditions as may be prescribed." Section 2(21) 
of the Act provides that "prescribed" under the Act would B 
mean as prescribed under the Rules and herein, the 
Rules being silent on any settlement of the nature 
allegedly entered into between the appellant and the 
State Government, the external circumstances including C 
a settlement cannot be considered by the Commissioner 
while exercising power of remission of tax under the Act. 
[para 16) [150-E-G] 
1.4 The settlement, if any, reached between the 0 
appellant and the State Government for part payment of 
tax liability by the partner of an assessee-Firm would not 
fall under the four corners of the Act or the Rules as has 
been claimed by the appellant since the beginning of the 
proceedings under the Act. Therefore, the High Court E 
has rightly examined the issues before it and the 
judgment and order passed by it does not suffer from 
any error. [para 19-20) [151-G-H; 152-A-B] 
2. It is trite that the letter of law has to be accorded F 
utmost respect and strictly adhered to especially while 
interpreting a taxing statute. The

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