Dismissed

Bhai Jaspal Singh and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Supreme Court22 Oct 20102010 INSC 722 · [2010] 14 S.C.R. 412010 INSC 722

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that 'investment' for sales tax exemption on small scale units means cost price without depreciation, and interest on tax dues accrues automatically upon default without need for a demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the High Court dated 14.09.2001 restoring the Asst. Commissioner's order denying exemption and levying interest on the appellant was upheld. No costs.

What the court decided

Bhai Jaspal Singh and Anr. versus… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2010)

¶1

[2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 41

¶2

BHAI JASPAL SINGH AND ANR.

¶3

¶4

¶5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ORS.

¶6

(Civil Appeal No. 4277 of 2002)

¶7

OCTOBER 22, 2010

¶8

¶9

[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]

¶10

Sa/es Tax:

¶11

¶12

West Bengal Sa/es Tax Act, 1954 - s.4AA - Exemption Notification no. 1428-F. T. dated 26-5-1994 - Notification providing for exemption from tax on sale of fruit juices and concentrates manufactured in small scale industrial units where "investment" in plant and machinery of such units did not exceed Rs.5 lakhs - Whether expression "investment" to be understood as investment made by a small scale industrial unit after depreciation on plant and machinery - Held: "Investment" must be understood according to its common business and commercial usage - Expression "investment" not subject to impact of depreciation in the value of plant and machinery - In computing the valuation of plant and machinery, only the cost price/purcha.se price of the equipment invested by the assessee is to be taken into account - On facts, assessee not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax as its investment was more than Rs.5 lakhs before the periods in question which remained unchanged - West Bengal Sa/es Tax Rules,, 1995 - r.41 _.. Bengal Sa/es Tax Rules, 1941 - r.3(116).

¶13

West Bengal Sa/es Tax Act, 1954 - s.4AA - Exemption Notification no. 1428-F. T. dated 26-5-1994 - Exemption Notification - Construction and interpretation of - Held: Meaning of the words given in the exemption notification is to be gathered from the language employed in the notification

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶21

A - No requirement of liberal construction where the notification does not apply to the assessee in the first place.

¶22

West Bengal Sa/es Tax Act, 1994 - s.31 - Bengal (Finance) Sales Tax Act, 1941 - s.10A - Interest on default of tax - Date from which payable - Difference between interest B and penalty - Held: Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable - It is different from penalty which is penal in character - Where tax due on the basis of quarterly return is not paid before the expiry of the c last date of filing of such return under the Act, it is not necessary to issue any notice of demand but on the default being committed by the dealer, he becomes liable to pay interest on the amount of such tax from the last date of filing of the return prescribed under the Act.

¶23

¶24

The assessee, a small scale industrial unit engaged in manufacturing juice, jelly, jam etc., was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, and was later E registered under the West Beilgal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The assessee filed returns for the assessment periods 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995 and 01.05.1995 to 31.03.1996 and claimed exemption from payment of sales tax mainly relying on the exemption notification issued by the State F Government bearing No. 1428-F.T. dated 26.05.1994 and Rule 41 of West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. According to the assessee, its investment in plant and machinery in its unit during the period from 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995 and from 01.05.1995 to 31.03.1996 was less than Rs. 5 lakhs and accordingly, it was entitled to get the tax G exemption under Rule 3(116) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 for the first period and by virtue of the notification dated 26.05.1994 and Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules for the second period. The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes disallowed the assessee's claim for

¶25

¶26

¶27

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 43 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶28

exemption from payment of sales tax for both the periods A and also levied interest as provided under Section 10A of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 1994. He held that the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax could not be granted since the assessee did not fulfill all the conditions prescribed in the notification granting exemption from payment of sales tax and also the conditions specified in Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules. The Assessing Officer took the book value of the plant and machinery as on 31st March, 1980 at Rs. 2,27,148.78/- and after the addition made from 1981 to 1986-1987, took the value of investment of plant and machinery for the assessment year 01.05.1995 to 31st March, 1996 as Rs.6,58,587/- for the purpose of assessment under the Act 1994 along with an assessment for the broken period between 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995. In appeal, the assessment order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The assessee filed second appeal before the West Bengal Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority. The High Court confirmed the order passed by E the Tribunal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶29

In the instant appeal, the assessee contended that the term "investment" used in the Notification refers to the actual value of the machinery after allowing depreciation as distinct from the cost of acquisition of such machinery. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that though the initial value of the plant and machinery was more than Rs.5 lakhs, on account of successive yearly depreciation in their value, the total value of plant and machinery was less than Rs.5 lakhs during the relevant assessment periods and, therefore, appellant's small scale industrial unit is eligible for exemption from payment of tax in view of the notification issued by the State Govt. and also under the Rules. The assessee

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶37

A further contended that the purport and intent of the Notification would be frustrated if such liberal construction is not taken, and if costs of repairing, overhauling and minor modification were included in investment on cost of plant and machinery, naturally the B investment made in plant and machinery would go beyond the prescribed limit and that cannot be the intention of the State Government while issuing notification granting exemption to small scale industrial units. The assessee also submitted that a liberal c construction should be adopted while interpreting the exemption notification as the purpose is to encourage small scale industrial units. The assessee also contended that the interest payable on tax due became payable only on quantification of amount of tax by way of assessment and service of demand notice and not for the period prior 0 to that.

¶38

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

¶39

HELD: 1.1. In common parlance, the term E "investment" has been defined as "a thing worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future" For the purpose of the Rules and the notification, "investment" must be understood according to its common business and commercial usage. While an exact F definition to suit all requirements will not be appropriate, but it may be said that investment in general would be spending money for the purpose of acquiring property or commodities that in turn generate further income. [Paras 14, 18) [57-G; 58-H; 59-A]

¶40

G 1.2. In the Notification issued by the State Government and the Rules framed, the requirement is that the investment made by the dealer in plant and machinery in the Small Scale Industrial Unit should be less than Rs.5 lakhs. It is obvious that money spent on upgrading or

¶41

¶42

l ..

¶43

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 45 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶44

replacing the machinery is investment that would increase the productivity of the machinery and, consequently, generate further income. It would thus be equivalent to acquiring of commodities that generate further income. Furthermore, there is no question of reducing depreciation value, as the determination is of the total money spent or "invested" in plant or machinery, and the same cannot be said to include the value of the machinery after depreciation. A reading of the Rule or the notification would not even suggest that while calculating the value of plant and machinery, depreciation of those equipments will have to be taken into consideration in computing the valuation of the plant and machinery. In computing the valuation of plant and machinery, only the cost price/purchase price of the equipments invested by the assessee will have to be taken into account. The expression "investment" in plant and machinery is not subject to the impact of depreciation in the value of plant and machinery. Since the assessee's investment is more than Rs. 5 lakhs before the periods in question and since the investment continues to remain unchanged, the assessee is not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax either under the Rules or under the notification. [Para 19] [59-B-F]

¶45

Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd, AIR 1989 SC 915 - referred to.

¶46

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Desoutter Brothers Ltd, (1946) ·1 All ER 58 (CA) and Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Broadway Car Co. (Wimbledon) Ltd., [1946] 2 All E.R. 609 - referred to.

Oxford English Dictionary, 11th egition, 2004; Bloomsbury English Dictionary, Reprint 1985 and Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon (Reprint Edition 1987 - referred to.

¶55

¶56

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶57

A 2.1. The conditions for availing exemptions are generally laid down in the notifications granting exemptions. Sometimes, exemptions are grafted in the Rules framed in this behalf. The "provisions" providing for an exemption may be properly construed strictly B against the person who makes the claim of an exemption. In other words, before an exemption can be recognized, the person or property claimed to be exempted must come clearly within the language apparently granting the exemption. The principle to be kept in view while c interpreting exemption notification is that the meaning of the words given in the exemption notification is to be gathered from the language employed in the notification. Notification by which exemption or other benefits are provided by the Govt. in exercise of its statutory powers D normally have some purpose. Such purpose is not to be defeated nor those who may be entitled for it are to be deprived by interpreting the notification which may give it some meaning other than what is clearly and plainly flowing from it. [Para 21) [59-H; 60-A-D]

¶58

E 2.2. The preamble of the Notification in the instant case states, that "whereas the Governor is of opinion that industrial unit is manufacturing certain goods in West Bengal which are in need of financial assistance and accordingly it is necessary to formulate a scheme of F industrial promotion to assist such unit for the purposes mentioned hereinabove". Clearly, the purpose of this notification is to promote industrial activity and development in the State of West Bengal. However, it is a necessary pre-condition that first the assessee should G fall within the clear wording of the notification. The assessee in this matter falls outside the parameters of this Notification, since his investment is over Rs.5 lakhs and, therefore, there is no question of the Notification applying to him. Thus, there is no requirement of liberal

¶59

¶60

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 47 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶61

construction as the notification does not apply to the A assessee in the first place. [Para 26] [62-B-D]

¶62

Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606; Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 4 SCC 272; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. v. State of Kera/a, (2007) 2 SCC 725; G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP. (2009) 2 SCC 90 - referred to.

¶63

¶64

Crawford's Statutory Construction - referred to.

¶65

¶66

3.1. From a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 1994, it is clear that there has been a legislative amendment incorporating statutory provision for payment of interest even before quantification of tax liability and service of demand notice pursuant to such quantification. [Para 28) [62-F-G]

¶67

¶68

3.2. Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable. The interest is levied on the actual amount of tax withheld and the E extent of delay in paying the tax on the due date. Essentially, it is compensatory and different from penalty which is penal in character [Para 30] [66-D-E]

¶69

3.3. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the F amount of tax due on the basis of the return ·furnished by the assessee has not been paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return required by Section 1 OA of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 19.~4. These sections provide that where tax due on the basis of the return has not been paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return, provision of sub-sectiqn (2) shall apply to the recovery of such demand for the amount of tax due. Sub-section (2) states that if the tax

¶70

¶71

¶72

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶73

A or any other amount due under the Act is not paid by the dealer or any other person by whom it is payable within the period specified in the demand notice, it shall be liable to pay interest on the tax or other amount which was payable at the rate specified in that sub-section. The B submission made by the assessee that interest on tax can be charged only after quantification of tax liability (by the Assessing Officer) and after service of demand notice, as provided under the Act is not complied with, goes contrary to the statutory provision provided under c Section 10A of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 1994. The Section provides that tax due on the basis of the returns shall be paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return. Therefore, under Sub-Section (1 ), the assessee would be liable to pay interest on the amount of such tax from the date when it was payable, 0 i.e. from the expiry of the last date of filing of returns under the Act. This Section specifically refers to notice of demand but obviously relates to sub-section (1) where notice of demand is required to be issued after the assessment of tax is completed and the amount of the E tax assessed becomes due only after the issue of notice of demand as provided in sub-section (1) but there is no requirement in the case of payment of tax due on the basis of quarterly return to be filed by the dealer. It is solely governed by sub-section (3): where the tax due on F the basis of quarterly return is not paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return under the Act, it is not necessary to issue any notice of demand but on the default being committed by the dealer, he becomes liable to pay interest under sub-section (2) on the amount of G such tax from the last date of filing quarterly returns prescribed under the Act. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that tax due on the basis of quarterly return was not paid as required by sub-section (3) and the appellant was, therefore, liable to pay interest on the

¶74

¶75

¶76

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 49 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶77

amount of tax in respe..;t of which default was committed at the rate prescribed in sub-section (2) from the last date prescribed for filing quarterly return under the Act upto the date of payment. [Para 30] [66-F-H; 67-A-F]

¶78

¶79

Pratibha Processors and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 138 - relied on.

¶80

¶81

Case Law Reference:

¶82

AIR 1989SC915	referred to	Para 15
(1946) 1 AllER58(CA)	referredto	Para 16	C
(1946) 2 AllE.R.609	referred to	Para 17
1994 Supp(3)SCC606	referredto	Para22
(2005) 4sec_212_	referredto	Para23	o
c2001)2sec_125_	referredto	Para24
(2009) 2sec90	referredto	Para25
AIR 1997SC138	relied on	Para 30

¶83

¶84

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4277 Of 2002.

¶85

From the Judgment & Order dated 14.9.2001 of the High Court at Calcutta in WPTT. No. 102 of 2000.

¶86

¶87

A.K. Ganguli, Sanjay Sen, Rana B. Biswas, Anurag Sharma, Hemant Singh, Mridul Charavorty, Indra Sawhney for the Appellants.

¶88

M. Chandrasekharn, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma for the Respondents.

¶89

¶90

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶91

H.L. DATTU, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the

¶92

¶93

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶94

A Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.T.T. No. 102 of 2000 dated 14.09.2001.

¶95

The issues which require our consideration and decision in this appeal are: the meaning of the expression 'Investment' B for the purpose of notification issued by the State of West Bengal under West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the corresponding Rules; the construction and interpretation of an exemption notification; and whether the interest is payable on tax only on quantification of tax by way of assessment under the Act or for any period prior to that.

¶96

¶97

The material facts are :-

¶98

The assessee is M/s Tulip Products Co., a partnership firm having a fruit processing unit at 37, lmjad Ali Lane, Calcutta. It 0 is a small scale industrial unit. The Unit is engaged in manufacturing juice, jelly, jam etc. The unit was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1941 "), the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, E 1954"), and was later registered under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1994").

¶99

The relevant assessment periods are 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995 and 01.05.1995 to 31.03.1996. In the returns filed for the aforesaid period, the assessee claimed exemption from F payment of sales tax mainly relying on the exemption notification issued by the State Government bearing No. 1428F.T. dated 26.05.1994 and Rule 41 of West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1995 Rules"). According to the assessee, its investment in plant and G machinery in its unit during the period from 01.04.1995 to

¶100

30.04.1995 and from 01.05.1995 to 31.03.1996 was less than '5 lakhs and accordingly, it was entitled to get the tax exemption under Rule 3(116) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1941 Rules") for the first H period and by virtue of the notification dated 26.05.1994 and

¶101

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 51 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶102

Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules for the second period. The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order of assessment for both the periods disallowing the assessee's claim for exemption from payment of sales tax and also levied interest as provided under Section 1 OA of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 1994. In the view of the Tax Officer, the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax cannot be granted since the assessee does not fulfill all the conditions prescribed in the notification granting exemption from payment of sales tax and also the conditions specified in Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules. The Assessing Officer took the book value of the plant and machinery as on 31st March, 1980 at '2,27,148.78/ - and after the addition made from 1981 to 1986-1987, took the value of investment of plant and machinery for the assessment year 01.05.1995 to 31st March, 1996 as '6,58,587/- for the purpose of assessment under the Act 1994 along with an assessment for the broken period between 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995.

¶103

In appeal, the assessment order passed by the Tax Officer was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The assessee filed Second Appeal before the West Bengal Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. In the writ petition filed, the High Court of Calcutta confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶104

The learned senior counsel Sri A. K. Ganguli for the assessee submits that the term "investment" used in the Notification refers to the actual value of the machinery after allowing depreciation as distinct from the cost of acquisition of such machinery. Alternatively, it is submitted that though the initial value of the plant and machinery was more than '5 lakhs, on account of successive yearly depreciation in their value, the total value of plant and machinery was less than '5 lakhs during the relevant assessment periods and, therefore, appellant's Small Scale Industrial Unit is eligible for exemption from payment of tax in view of the notification issued by the State

Q H

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶114

A Govt. and also under the Rules. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the purport and intent of the Notification would be frustrated if such liberal construction is not taken, and if costs of repairing, overhauling and minor modification were included in investment on cost of plant and

¶115

B machinery, naturally the investment made in plant and machinery would go beyond the prescribed limit and that cannot be the intention of the State Government while issuing notification granting exemption to Small Scale Industrial Units. He also submitted that a liberal construction should be adopted while

¶116

C interpreting the exemption notification as the purpose is to encourage Small Scale Industrial Units. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the interest payable on tax due shall become payable only on quantification of amount of tax by way of assessment and service of demand notice and not for the period prior to that.

¶117

¶118

The learned senior counsel Sri. M. Chandrasekharan for

¶119

the respondent ably justifies the impugned Judgment. The learned senior counsel submits that in considering the "investment" in plant and machinery of an industrial unit for the

¶120

E purpose of the notification and also the Rules, the depreciation in the value of such plant and machinery cannot be taken into account. It is also contended that the liability to pay interest under the Act automatically arises, if a dealer fails to pay any amount of tax due under the Act.

¶121

¶122

In order to appreciate the rival submissions made by the reamed senior counsel, we need to notice the statutory provisions and the notification issued by the State Govt. Rule 3(116) of the 1941 Rules reads as under :-

¶123

G "116) [Sales by a dealer of-

¶124

(a) (i) jam, (ii) jelly, (iii) marmalade (iv) pickle (v) amsatta (vi) chutney (vii) Kasundi (viii) .... (ix) ketchup

¶125

¶126

(b) Vinegar made from fruits or vegetables.

¶127

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 53 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.] (c) (i) fruit pulp and (ii) fruit peels A (d) Processed fruits, that is to say, candied, crystallized or glaced fruits, but excluding the notified commodities covered by this department notification No. 2252 dated the 9th June, 1969, as subsequently amended. B (e) (i) vegetable pulp (ii) vegetable peels (iii) juice and (iv) vegetable sarbat. When the goods mentioned in (a) (b) (c) (d) or (e) are manufactured in his small scale industrial unit in West c Bengal] Provided that the small scale industrial unit is registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries of Government of West Bengal, and investment D by the dealer in Plant and Machinery of such unit is less than '5 lakhs."

¶128

In exercise of the power conferred by Section 4AA of the Act, 1954, the State Government has issued Notification No.1428 - F.T. dated 26th May, 1994. The Notification is as E under: "Registered No. WBISC-247 No.WB (Parl-1)194/SAR-122 The Calcutta Gazette F Extraordinary Published by Authority

¶129

JAYISTHA 5] THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1994 [SAKA 1916 G PART-I - Orders and Notifications by the Governor of West Bengal, the High Court, Government Treasury, etc. H

¶130

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶131

¶132

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT TAXATION

¶133

No.1428- F.T.

¶134

Calcutta, the 26th May, 1994

¶135

¶136

NOTIFICATION

¶137

Whereas the Governor is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest;

¶138

Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by c section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (West Bengal Act IV of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Governor is pleased hereby to direct that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on sales by a dealer of -

¶139

¶140

(a) (i) fruit juices,

¶141

(vii) fruit syrups,

¶142

viii) fruit concentrates,

¶143

¶144

(ix) fruit squashes,

¶145

(x) fruit cordials, and

¶146

(xi) fruit sarbat,

¶147

¶148

including in this department notification no.3945 - F.T., dated the 26th August, 1977, as subsequently amended;

¶149

(b) canned, bottled or any other preserved fruits, included in this department notification No. 2252- F.T., dated the 9th G June, 1969;

¶150

(c) processed food, commonly known as instant food, that is to say, pre-cooked or curried vegetable, and vegetable soup, included in this department notification no.1036 F.T., H dated the 31st March, 1988, when the notified

¶151

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 55 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶152

commodities mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) are manufactured A in his small scale industrial unit in West Bengal registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries of the Government of West Bengal and the investment by the dealer in plant and machinery of such unit is less than fivelakhrupees.

¶153

¶154

This notification shall come into force on and from the 1st day of June, 1994.

¶155

By order of the Governor

¶156

S. MITRA C

¶157

Jt. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal"

¶158

With a view to encourage Small Scale Industrial Units and to step up economic growth by promoting development of these industries in the State, the West Bengal State Govt. decided to grant exemption from payment of sales tax to certain Small Scale Industrial Units. To achieve that object, it issued notification No.1438-FT dated 26.05.1994 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4AA of the Act, 1954, granting exemption from payment of sales tax on sales by a dealer of fruit juices, fruit concentrates, fruit cordials and fruit sarbat, canned, bottled or any preserved fruits (goo<;fs included in Notification No. 2252-F.T. dated 09.06.1969) and the goods included in Notification No. 1036-F.T. dated 31.03.1988. In the Notification, it is further specified that the goods mentioned in Column (a), (b) or (c), are manufactured in a Small Scale Industrial Unit in West Bengal registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries of the Govt. of West Bengal and the investment by the dealer in plant and machinery of such unit is less than '5 lakhs.

¶159

Section 104 of the Act, 1994 grants power to the State G Government to make rules, with prospective or retrospective effect, for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the power so conferred, the State Government has framed Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules. The Rule provides for exemption from tax on sales of certain fruit and vegetable products etc.

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶165

A manufactured in Small Scale Industrial Units in West Bengal. The Rule is as under:-

¶166

¶167

"Exemption from tax on sales of certain fruit and vegetable products etc. manufactured in small-scale industrial units in West Bengal - Where a dealer makes sales of -

¶168

(i) fruit product, that is to say, fruit juice, fruit syrup, fruit concentrate, fruit squash, fruit cordial, fruit sarbat, fruit jam, fruit jelly, fruit marmalade, fruit pickle, amsatta, chutney, kasundi, fruit sauce, ketch up, fruit pulp, fruit peel,

¶169

¶170

(ii) processed fruit, that is to say, candied, crystallized or glaced fruit,

¶171

(iii) caned, bottled or any other preserved fruit,

¶172

D (iv) processed food, commonly known as instant food, that is to say, pre-cooked or curried vegetable and vegetable soup,

¶173

(v) vegetable product, that is to say, vegetable pulp, E vegetable peel, vegetable juice, [vegetable sauce, vegetable pickles] or vegetable sarbat,

¶174

manufactured in his small-scale industrial unit in West Bengal, registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small-Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal F and where investment by such dealer in plant and machinery of such unit is less than five lakh rupees, such dealer may deduct such sales under sub-clause (xi) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 from his gross turnover of sales."

¶175

¶176

Section 2 of the Act is the interpretation 'Clause. Clause (b) of Section 2 defines 'dealer'. Section 4 is the charging Section. Section 4AA empowers the State Government to grant exemptions or reductions in rate of tax on the sale or purchase H of goods by a dealer or category of dealers to be specified in

¶177

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 57 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶178

any notification to be issued by the State Oovernment in the A pubic interest. The scheme of the Rules and the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under Sectiori 4AA of the Act, 1954, is that the commodities specified in the Notification must be manufactured by a Small Scale Industrial Unit in West Bengal, it must be registered with the B Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries of the Government of West Bengal; and the investment by dealer in plant and machinery of such unit must be less than ·5 lakhs. These exemptions are also provided in Rule 3(116) of the 1941 Rules and Rule 41 of the 1995 Rules. These Rules speak of exemption from payment of tax on sales of certain fruits and vegetable products etc. manufactured in small-scale industrial units in West Bengal and investment in plant and machinery should not exceed ·5 Lakhs.

¶179

We will now consider the contentions raised by the D learned senior counsel for the parties to the lis.

¶180

¶181

Contention (a):-

¶182

The expression "investment" in the notification is the main controversy in this appeal. The assessee claims that the word "investment" requires to be understood as the investment made by a Small Scale Industrial Unit after giving depreciation on plant and machinery. According to the Assessing Authority, even after allowing such a claim, which in our opinion, is not the correct way of understanding the expression, the investment is more than ·5 lakhs and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for exemption from payment of sales tax.

¶183

In common parlance, the term "investment" has been defined as "a thing worth buying because it may be profitable G or useful in the future" (Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition, 2004) or as the "placing of money to gain profit" (Bloomsbu,.Y English Dictionary, Reprint, 1985).

¶184

Speaking of investment in the context of the Income

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶189

A Tax Act, 1961, this Court observed in Commissioneroflncome Tax, Lucknow v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd, AIR 1989 SC 915, quoting P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon (Reprint Editio~ 1987) that:

¶190

"The term invest is used in a sense broad enough to cover B the loaning of the money but is not restricted to that mode of investment or loans made on commercial paper. The word invest has been judicially defined as follows:-

¶191

To place property in business; to place it so that it will be c safe and yield a profit. It is also commonly understood as giving money, for some other property (as) investing funds on lands and houses. Investment means in common parlance, putting out money on interest, either by the way of loan, or by the purchase of it;1come producing D property ... " (emphasis supplied) (Para 9).

¶192

In Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Desoutter Brothers Ltd, (1946) 1 All ER 58 (CA), it is stated:

¶193

'The word 'investment' is not a word of art but has to be E interpreted in a popular sense. It is not capable of legal definition but a word of current vernacular. The words 'invest' and 'investment' are to be taken in the business sense of laying out money for interest and profit."

¶194

F 17. In a slightly different context, following the Desoutter Brothers case, it was held in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Broadway Car Co. (Wimbledon) Ltd., [1946] 2 All E.R. 609, that the question whether a particular source of income was an investment or not must be decided as it would be by G businessmen according to ordinary commonsense principles.

¶195

In our view, for the purpose of the Rules and the notification, "investment" must be understood according to its common business and commercial usage. While an exact definition to suit all requirements will not be appropriate, but it H may be said that investment in general would be spendiZ~

¶196

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 59 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶197

money for the purpose of acquiring property or commodities A: that in turn generate further income.

¶198

In the Notification issued by the State Government and the Rules framed, the requirement is that the investment made by the dealer in plant and machinery in the Small Scale 8 Industrial Unit should be less than '5 lakhs. It is obvious that money spent on upgrading or replacing machinery is investment that would increase the productivity of the machinery and consequently generate further income. It would thus be · equivalent to acquiring of commodities that generate further C income. Furthermore, there is no question of reducing depreciation value, as the determination is of the total money spent or "invested" in plant or machinery, and the same cannot be said to include the value of the machinery after depreciation. A reading of the Rule or the notification would not even suggest that while calculating the value of plant and machinery, D depreciation of those equipment will have to be taken into consideration in computing the valuatior;r' of the plant and machinery. In our view, in computing the valuation of plant and machinery, only the cost price/purchase price of the equipment invested by the assessee will have to be taken into account. E The expression "investment" in plant and machinery is not subject to the impact of depreciation in the value of plant and machinery. Since the assessee's investment is more than ' 5 lakhs before the periods in question and since the investment continues to remain unchanged, the assessee is not entitled F to exemption from payment of sales tax either under the Rules or under the notification.

¶199

Contention {b):-

¶200

The second contention of learned senior counsel for G the assessee is that the Notification providing exemption should be liberally construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve.

¶201

The conditions for availing exemptions are generally H

¶202

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶203

A laid down in the notifications granting exemptions. Sometimes, exemptions are grafted in the Rules framed in this behalf. In Crawford's Statutory Construction, it is stated that "Provisions" providing for an exemption may be properly construed strictly against the person who makes the claim of an exemption. In

¶204

B other words, before an exemption can be recognized, the person or property claimed to be exempted must come clearly within the language apparently granting the exemption. In our opinion, the principle to be kept in view while interpreting exemption notification is that the meaning of the words given

¶205

c in the exemption notification is to be gathered from the language employed in the notification. Notification by which exemption or other benefits are provided by the Govt. in exercise of its statutory powers normally have some purpose. Such purpose is not to be defeated nor those who may be entitled for it are to be deprived by interpreting the notification

¶206

0 which may give' it some meaning other than what is clearly and plainly flowing from it.

¶207

This Court, in the case of Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, E Hyderabad, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606, has observed :-

¶208

"The principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the assessee - assuming that the said principle is good and sound - does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting F provision; they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. This is for G the reason explained in Mangalore Chemicals and other decisions, viz., each such exception/exemption increases the tax burden on other members of the community correspondingly. Once, of course, the provision is found

¶209

¶210

\ I

¶211

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 61 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶212

applicable to him, full effect must be given to it." (emphasi~^A supplied) (Para 18).

¶213

The view expressed in Novopan India case (supra) finds further approval in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State pf Jharkhand, (2005) 4 SCC 272, where the Court observed B that:

¶214

"Eligibility clause, it is well settled, in relation to exemption notification must be given a strict meaning." (emphasis supplied) (Para 45).

¶215

¶216

And further, in the same case:

¶217

'The principle that in the event a provision of fiscal statute is obscure such construction which favours the assessee may be adopted, but it would have no application to D construction of an exemption notification, as in such a case it is for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of exemption." (emphasis supplied) (Para 47).

¶218

In A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. v. State of Kera/a, (2007) 2 sec 725, it is stated :-

¶219

¶220

"The general principles with regard to construction of exemption notification are not of much dispute. Generally, an exemption notification is to be construed strictly, but once it is found that the entrepreneur fulfils the conditions F laid down therein, liberal construction would be made." (emphasis supplied) (Para 22).

¶221

The aforesaid principle is summed up by this Court in G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., (2009) 2 sec 90 as under :

¶222

¶223

"It is now a well established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification H

¶224

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶225

A should be construed liberally." (emphasis supplied) (Para 32).

¶226

The preamble of the Notification in this case states that "whereas the Governor is of opinion that industrial unit is B manufacturing certain goods in West Bengal which are in need of financial assistance and accordingly it is necessary to formulate a scheme of industrial promotion to assist such unit for the purposes mentioned hereinabove". Clearly, the purpose of this notification is to promote industrial activity and development in the State ofWest Bengal. However, as is clear C from the discussed cases, it is a necessary pre-condition that first the assessee should fall within the clear wording of the notification. The assessee in this matter falls outside the parameters of this Notification, since his investment is over ·5 lakhs, therefore, there is no question of the Notification applying D to him. Thus, there is no requirement of liberal construction as the notification does not apply to the assessee in the first place.

¶227

Contention (cl:-

¶228

. 27. The learned senior counsel Sri A.K. Ganguli contended E that interest on tax can be charged only after quantification of tax liability by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, respondent was . not justified in issuing the demand notice for payment of tax by including interest element.

¶229

F 28. There has been a legislative amendment incorporating statutory provision for payment of interest even before quantification of tax liability and service of demand notice pursuant to such quantification. For ready reference, we quote below the relevant Sections. Section 10-A of the Act, 1941 is G as under:-

¶230

"S. 1 OA Interest payable by dealer.- (1) Where a registered or certified dealer furnishes a [return] referred to in section 10 in respect of any period by the prescribed date or thereafter, but fails to make full payment of tax

¶231

¶232

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 63 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶233

payable in respect of such period by such prescribed date, he shall pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each English calendar month of default from the first day of such month next following the prescribed date up to the month preceding the month of full payment of such tax or up to the month prior to the month of assessr.ient under B section 11 in respect of such period, whichever is earlier, upon so much of the amount of tax payable by him according to such [returns] remains unpaid at the [end of each of such month of default;]

¶234

Provided that where such dealer admits in writing that C the amount of tax payable in respect of such period is an amount which is either more or less than, what has been originally shown as payable in the [return] and where the Commissioner is satisfied on the point of such admission, the interest shall be payable upon so much of the amount D of tax payable according to such admission as remains unpaid at the [end of each such month of default.]

¶235

(2) Where a registered or certified dealer fails to furnish [a return] referred to in section 10 in respect of any period by the prescribed date or thereafter before the assessment under section 11 in respect of such period, and on such assessment full amount of tax payable for such period is found not to have been paid by him by such prescribed date, he shall pay a simple interest at the rate or two per centum of each English calendar month of default from the first day of the month next following the prescribed date up to the month preceding the month of full payment of tax for such period or up to the month prior to the month of assessment under section 11 in respect G of such period, whichever is earlier, upon so much of the amount of tax payable by him according to such assessment as remains unpaid at the [end of each such month of default;]

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶241

A Provided that where an assessment under section 11 is made for more than [one period] and such assessment does not show separately the tax payable for the period in respect of which interest is payable under this sub-section, the Commissioner shall estimate the tax 8 payable for such period on the basis of such assessment after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard.

¶242

¶243

(3) Where a dealer fails to make payment of any tax payable after assessment by the date specified in the notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 11 for c payment thereof, he shall pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each English calendar month of default from the first day of the month next following the date specified in such notice up to the month preceding the month of full payment of such tax or up to the month D preceding the month of commencement of proceedings under sub-section (4) of section 11, whichever is earlier, upon so much of the amount of tax payable by him according to such notice as remains unpaid at the [end of each such month of default.]

¶244

¶245

· 29. Similarly, in Section 31 of the Act, 1994, it is provided that:

¶246

"31. Interest for non-payment or delayed payment of tax before assessment. - (1) Where a registered dealer, or F a dealer required to furnish return under sub-section (3) of section 30, furnishes a return referred to in that section in respect of any period by the prescribed date or thereafter, but fails to make full payment of the tax payable under subsection (4) of that section in respect of such period by such G prescribed date, he shall pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each British calendar month of default from the first day of such month next following the prescribed date up to the month preceding the month of full payment of such tax or up to the month Ji>rior to the H month of assessment under section 45 or section 46, as

¶247

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 65 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶248

the case may be, in respect of such period, whichever is earlier, upon so much of the amount of tax payable by him according to such return as remains unpaid at the end of each such month of default:

¶249

Provided that where such dealer admits in writing that the amount of tax payable in respect of such period is an amount which is either more or less than what has been originally shown as payable in the return and where the Commissioner is satisfied on the point of such admission, the interest shall be payable upon so much of the amount of tax payable according to such admission as remains unpaid at the end of each such month of default.

¶250

(2) Where a registered dealer, or a dealer required to furnish return under sub-section (3) of section 30, fails to furnish a return referred to in that section in respect of any period by the prescribed date or thereafter before the assessment under section 45 or section 46, as the case may be, in respect of such dealing, and on such assessment full amount of tax payable for such period is found not to have been paid by him by such prescribed date, he shall pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each British calendar month of default for the first day of the month next following the prescribed date up to the month preceding the month of full payment of tax for such period or up to the month prior to the month of assessment under section 45 or section 46, as the case may be, in respect of such period, whichever is earlier, upon so much of the amount of tax payable by him according to such assessment as remains unpaid at the end of each such month of default:

¶251

Provided that where an assessment under section 45 or section 46 is made for more than one period and such assessment does not show separately the tax payable for the period in respect of which interest is payable under this sub-section, the Commissioner shall apportion the tax

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶261

A payable for such period on the basis of such assessment.

¶262

(3) A dealer liable to pay interest under sub-section {1) or sub-section (2) of this section or sub-section (8) of section 40, as the case may be, shall, in the prescribed manner, pay into a Government Treasury or the Reserve Bank of . B India the amount of interest payable by, or due from, him by such date as may be prescribed.

¶263

(4) Interest under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of this section shall be payable in respect of the returns, the c prescribed dates for the functioning of which under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) of section 30 are the dates subsequent to the appointed day."

¶264

Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed D on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable. The interest is levied on the actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax on the due date. Essentially, it is compensatory and different from penalty which is penal in character [See Pratibha E Processors and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. - AIR 1997 SC 138]. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the amount of tax due on the basis of the return furnished by the assessee has not been paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return required by Section 10A of the Act, 1941 and F Section 31 of the Act, 1994. These sections provide that where tax due on the basis of the return has not been paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return. provision of subsection (2) shall apply to the recovery of such demand for the amount of tax due. Sub-section (2) states that if the tax or any other amount due under the Act is not paid by the dealer or any G other person by whom it is payable within the period specified in the demand notice, it shall be liable to pay interest on the tax or other amount which was payable at the rate specified in that sub-section. The learned senior counsel Sri A.K. Ganguli would contend that it is only after quantification of tax liability H and service of demand notice, as provided under the Act, and

¶265

BHAI JASPAL SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 67 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [H.L. DATTU, J.]

¶266

if that is not complied, then only interest becomes payable by A the dealer. In our view, it is difficult to accept this submission of the learned senior counsel. This submission goes contrary to the statutory provision provided under Section 1 OA of the Act, 1941 and Section 31 of the Act, 1994. The Section provides that tax due on the basis of the returns shall be paid before the B expiry of the last date of filing of such return. Therefore, under Sub-Section (1), the assessee would be liable to pay interest on the amount of such tax from the date when it was payable, i.e. from the expiry of the last date of filing of returns under the Act. This Section specifically refers to notice of demand but c obviously relates to sub-section (1) where notice of demand is required to be issued after the assessment of tax is completed and the amount of the tax assessed becomes due only after the issue of notice of demand as provided in sub-section (1) but there is no requirement in the case of payment of tax due 0 on the basis of quarterly return to be filed by the dealer. It is solely governed by sub-section (3): where the tax due on the basis of quarterly return is not paid before the expiry of the last date of filing of such return under the Act, it is not necessary to issue any notice of demand but on the default being committed E by the dealer, he becomes liable to pay interest under subsection (2) on the amount of such tax from the last date of filing quarterly returns prescribed under the Act. In the present case, it is the admitted position that tax due on the basis of quarterly return was not paid as required by sub-section (3) and the F appellant was, therefore, liable to pay interest on the amount of tax in respect of which default was committed at the rate prescribed in sub-section (2) from the last date prescribed for filing quarterly return under the Act upto the date of payment.

¶267

¶268

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby rejected. No costs.

¶269

¶270

B.B.B.

¶271

Appeal dismissed.

Bhai Jaspal Singh and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Bhai Jaspal Singh and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. versus Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors.

Asoke Basak versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Choudhary Ship Breakers versus Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus M/S. Shital International

M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. versus Commnr. of Central Excise, Vadodara