LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus M/S. HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. v. M/S. HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS (P) LTD. MARCH 20, 1996 B [N.P. SINGH AND SUHA5 C. SEN, JJ.] Sales Tax: U.P. Sales Tax Act 194&-Section 4-A-Notification, issued under- C Granting exemption in respect of specified goods produced by specified undertakings for a specified period-Effect of on Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act prior to amendment-The exemption from the Central Sales Tax Act under the repealed provision was in respect of 'sales or purchases ..... of any goods by a dealer and granted exemption to any goods exempt from tax genera/ly'-fleld, respondent not entitled to the benefit of S.8(2A) of the D Central Sales Tax Act. A Gazette Notification under Section 4-A of the State Act was issued by the State Granting exemption from payment of sales tax to various newly set up industrial undertakings for specified goods for a specified E period of time. The claim of the respondent was that it was entitled to exemption from payment of tax under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Act, before its amendment. It was contended by the respondent that under the unamended Section 8(2A), the exemption was in respect of a dealer whereas under the amending Act, exemption was with respect to goods. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. In order to take advantage of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer will have to establish that the sale or purchase of the goods in question was exempt from tax generally. If it was a special exemption granted to him because his undertaking was a new G industrial undertaking or of any other reason for a limited period, then j . . y . .. ' .. the exemption will not be of general nature and he will not be entitled to ')I get the benefit of this sub-section. There was an Explanation to _the old sub section (2A) of Section 8, which made in clear that if the exemption was only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or in relation H to which the tax was levied at specified stages or otherwise than with 678 ... . - y STATEv. HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS (P) LTD. 679 reference to the tnrnover of goods, shall not to be deemed to be exemption A from tax generally. [683-B-C] 1.2. In the instant case, the exemption has been granted only in respect of specified goods prodnced by certain specified newly set up undertakings mentioned in the notification. The benefit of exemption will be available to these undertakings for a period of three years. In other B words, at a specified stage of development of these industries they will be given a special benefit which will not be available generally to other industries producing goods of similar nature. In fact, it does not appear that by the amendment of sub-section (2A) of Section 8 any change has been brought about in respect of meaning or the concept of sale or C purchase of goods exempt from tax generally. [683-D-E; Fl Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., [1995] 1 sec 5, relied on. 2. In the Notes on Clauses to the Bill introduced for amending the D Central _Sales Tax Act by the Amendment Act of 1972 (61 of 72), it was stated that "sub-clause (a) of Clause 5 sought to substitute a new sub-sec- tion for existing sub-section (2A)-of Section 8 of the Principal Act. The new sub-section seeks to bring out more clearly that an exemption or lower rate of levy nnder the local sales tax law of the appropriate State would be available in respect of the inter-State sale of the goods only if such E exemption or lower levy is available generally with reference to such goods under the local sales tax law". The purpose behind the amendment in section 8(2A) was to make the existing provisions clearer. In other words, object was not to bring about any change in the existing law but to set it out in clearer words. [68S·D-G] F M/s. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1976] 4 SCC 27 and Hindustan safety Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1974) 34 STC (All.), referred lo. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 109 of G 1977 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.74 and 23.5.74 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W. Petition Nos. 759 and 2253 or 1974. Raja Ram Agarwal, Joseph Vellapally, K.S. Chaudhan and R.B. H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R. A Misra, Ravinder Narain Ms. Punita Singh, Ashok Sagar, Vivek Gambhir S.K. Garnbhir and M.S. Dhill
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.