Dismissed

The State of a.P..S.T.a.T.Hyd. v. Prompt Packing (Pvt)Ltd.Rr Dist.

Telangana HC21 Feb 2013TRC/141/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed revisions filed by the Revenue challenging Tribunal orders. Invoking State of AP Vs. Hindustan Cables Limited, the Court held that no provision in the Central Sales Tax Act authorizes forfeiture of unremitted excess tax and Revenue cannot invoke General Sales Tax Act forfeiture powers as forfeiture is a substantive right.

What did the court decide?

Revisions filed by the Revenue were dismissed and no costs awarded.

The State of a.P..S.T.a.T.Hyd. Vs Prompt Packing… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶4

T.R.C.Nos.141 of 2001, 143 of 2001, 176 of 2001, 283 of 2001, 162 of 2002, 202 of 2003 and T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶6

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

¶7

Heard Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and Sri M.V.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

2. T.R.C.Nos.283/2001, 143/2001, 202/2003, 162/2002, 141 of 2001 and 176/2001 are filed against the common order dt.28-03-2001 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘Tribunal’) in T.A.Nos.534/98, 535/98, 536/98, 537/98, 1409 of 1999 and 538/98 holding in favor of the respondent therein.

¶9

3. T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009 is filed by the Revenue challenging the order dt.19-01-2009 passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.873 of 2008 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent therein.

¶10

4. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in all these revisions i.e. T.R.C.Nos.283/2001, 143/2001, 202/2003, 162/2002, 141 of 2001, 176/2001 and T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009, they are being disposed off by this common order.

¶11

5. The issue which arises for consideration in these revisions filed under Section 22 of the AP General Sales Tax Act,

¶12

1957 (for short ‘GST Act’) is whether the Revenue is entitled to forfeit the excess tax collected but not remitted by the respective respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’) invoking powers under the GST Act in the absence of a specific provision under the CST Act providing for such forfeiture.

¶13

6. In the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, it relied upon its own order in the case of M/s.Hindusthan Cables Limited Vs. State of AP^[1] and held:

¶14

a) there is no substantive provision for forfeiting sales tax under the provisions of the CST Act and therefore the assessing authority cannot enforce forfeiture of Central Sales Tax under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act and

¶15

b) Revenue cannot invoke the provisions of GST Act in view of specific provision made in Section 10 of the CST Act providing for punishment of imprisonment and fine in the case of unauthorized collection of tax.

¶16

It held that the forfeiture of tax collections made by the respective respondents under the CST Act are without the authority of law and set aside the same.

¶17

7. The Revenue has filed the revisions against the orders of the Tribunal contending that the respective respondents had collected excess taxes under the CST Act which they had not remitted to the revenue; that under Section 30-C of the CST Act read with Section 9 (2) (a) of the CST Act, the assessing authority had a right to forfeit the same; that the orders of the Tribunal are wrong in law; and are liable to be set aside.

¶18

8. At the time of hearing of these revisions, the learned

¶19

Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes fairly stated that the decision in M/s.Hindustan Cables’ case (1 supra) relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned orders was upheld by this Court in

¶20

State of AP Vs. Hindustan Cables Limited^[2] .

¶21

9. This Court in Hindustan Cables Limited’s case (2 supra) has held that a provision for forfeiture of tax is a substantive provision and not a mere procedural prescription; CST Act contains no provision authorizing forfeiture of excess tax collected but not remitted to the Revenue; and consequently no forfeiture can be ordered by relying on the forfeiture provisions in the GST Act.

¶22

10. In view of the above decision, the Revisions filed by the Revenue, raising a plea to the contra, have to be rejected as without any merit.

¶23

11. Accordingly the Revisions are dismissed. No costs.

¶24

____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶25

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶26

Date :21-02-2013 kvr

¶27

[1] 28 APSTJ 137 [2] 2013 (57) VST 284

The State of a.P..S.T.a.T.Hyd. v. Prompt Packing (Pvt)Ltd.Rr Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P..S.T.a.T.Hyd. v. Prompt Packing (Pvt)Ltd.Rr Dist.

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

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Government of India

The State of a.P., Vs M/s. Shanmukha Traders

M/s.Ivrcl - Navayuga - Sew (Jv), Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Excise and Customs

M/s. B.F.G. International Private Limited Vs The State

Spectra Shares and Scripts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii