LexTATA CUMMINS LTD. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
TATA CUMMINS LTD.
V.
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
AUGUST I, 2006
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.)
Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001; Clause 28:
Assessee claiming benefit of exemption of Sales Tax in terms of an
C Industrial Policy-Clause 28 of the Policy-Interpretation of-Held: In terms
of provisions in the policy, the benefit of set-off of sales tax on the purchase
of raw material could be availed by the assessee subject to the condition that
benefit of tax deferment not availed of by it in terms of earlier policy/
Notification--The assessee in question had already availed of such benefit,
D hence not entitled to the benefit under Clause 28. l of the Policy-Interpretation
of Statutes.
The then State of Bihar issued an Industrial Policy known as "Bihar
Industrial Policy, 1995". In terms thereof, benefit of exemption of sales
tax on purchase of raw materials and on sale of finished goods has been
E granted to the industrial units of the State. Assessee-company had been
manufacturing diesel engines and components since l. l.1996. It was
granted exemption of sales tax on purchase of raw materials and on sale
of finished goods for a period of eight years, up to 31.l2.2003. In the
meantime, the State of Bihar was reorganized and the State of Jharkhand
F was created. The appellant fell within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the
State of Jt.arkhand. The State of Jharkhand announced its first Industrial
Policy, "Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 ", which commenced from
15.11.2000. It allowed certain benefits of sales tax deferment to the eligible
industrial units. The assessee applied for availing of such benefit, but the
benefit was not allowed to it. Aggrieved, assessee preferred a writ petition,
G which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
The appellant-assessee contended that the Industrial Units which
were actually availing of the facility of Tax-deferment as on 15.11.2000,
would not be provided with the benefit under Clause 28.l of the Jharkhand
Industrial Policy, the consequence would be that hardly any unit will get
l{
194
.
-
TATA CUMMINS LTD. v.STATEOF JHARKHAND[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.]
J 95
the benefit of Clause 28.1 because almost all the units of State of A
Jharkhand were enjoying the benefit of Sales Tax-deferment in terms of
earlier policy, therefore, such an interpretation should be avoided.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. On the effective date i.e. 15.11.2000, when the first ever B
Industrial Policy of the newly created State of Jharkhand commenced, the
assessee-company was actually availing the facility of Tax-deferment under
the Notification announced earlier. Hence, on a plain reading of Clause
28.1 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, the appellant-Industry is not
entitled to the benefit under Clause 28.1 of the Policy. (198-B)
1.2. In the instant case, Clause 28.1 is clear. The words used therein
c
are "not availing any facility of Tax-deferment". The present continuous
tense has been used in Clause 28.1. Thus, Clause 28.1 means that the
benefit therein will be available only if the facility of Tax-deferment is not
actually being availed Qf on the date of the Notification of the Industrial D
Policy. It is well settled when the meaning of a provision is clear, one
cannot depart from the literal rule of construction. Since the appellant
was already availing the facility of Tax-deferment on 15.11.2000, he was
not entitled to the benefit under Clause 28.1 of the Policy.
(198-E-F; 199-A)
Hiralal Ratan Lal v. Sales Tax Officer, Section Ill, Kanpur & Anr., AIR
(1973) SC 1034, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7559 of2004.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2005 of the High Court of F
Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (Tax) No. 3037 of 2004.
S. Ganesh, Pallav Sisodia, S. Sukumaran and K. Rajeev for the Appellant.
Sunil Gupta, and Gopal Prasad for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This Appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court dated 08.8.2005 passed in
Writ Petition (Tax) No.3037 of 2004 in Tata Cummins Ltd v. State of
Jharkhand & Ors.
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking a
declaration that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of set-off of Sales
Tax w.e.fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.