COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. MOHAN BREWARIES AND DISTRILLERIES LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2020-6-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on June 29,2020

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Appellant
VERSUS
Mohan Brewaries And Distrilleries Limited Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,MUMBAI VS. ASHISH BAJPAI [REFERRED TO]
LILA VATI BAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED VS. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED :GANESH FLOUR MILLS CO LIMITED DELHI:MODI SUGAR MILLS:DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED BELGAUM VS. BELGAUM BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY BELGAUM [REFERRED TO]
J K COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO LIMITED VS. SALES TAX OFFICER KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE DA COSTA VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD DIXIT VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GANESH TRADING CO KARNAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M K KANDASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
KATHIAWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. JAFFRABAD MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY GOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BOMBAY II VS. KIRAN SPINNING MILLS [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. THOMAS STEPHEN AND CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAJ STEEL VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HMM LIMITED VS. ADMINISTRATOR BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
S PRAKASHA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL BALAJI VS. STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
H M BAGS MANUFACTURER VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LIMITED VS. P ASHOKAN [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER BREWERIES VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VS. NANDANAM CONSTRUCTION CO [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA [REFERRED TO]
NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CUDDALORE [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VADODRA VS. DHIREN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD PVT PRIMARY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI PACKAGING INDUSTRY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS GUJARAT VS. PAN PIPES [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB AROMATICS VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. RATAN MELTING AND WIRE INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. INDIA CEMENTS LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. SUBBARAJ AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
APPOLLO SALINE PHARMACEUTICALS P LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI VS. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED VS. COMMR. OF CEN. EXCISE & CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
APPOLLO SALINE PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DINESH MAHESHWARI.J. - (1.)The appeals in this batch, involving similar questions between the same parties, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
(2.)Civil Appeal Nos. 7164 of 2013 and 7165 of 2013, filed respectively by the revenue and the assessee, are directed against the final judgement and order dated 10.09.2004, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 25081 of 2002, whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee while holding, inter alia, that though the purchase turnover, with respect to the purchase of empty bottles from unregistered dealers under bought note, is exigible to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959[1] but, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 issued by the revenue till the same were withdrawn prospectively by the Clarification dated 28.01.2002 and therefore, the revenue is not entitled to levy purchase tax for the said turnover of purchase of empty bottles for the assessment year 1996-97.
[1] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Tamil Nadu Act' or simply 'the Act'.

2.1. The assessee has filed another set of appeals in Civil Appeal Nos. 4416-4419 of 2014 against the order of the High Court dated 05.12.2013, passed in Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 1667,1669, 1857 of 2008 and 13 of 2009, wherein the High Court has held that the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90 on the turnover of purchase of empty bottles from the unregistered dealers while following its aforesaid earlier order dated 10.09.2004.

(3.)Put in a nutshell, these matters involve the interpretation of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, providing for levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances, with root questions as to whether purchase tax is leviable on the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased by the assessee in the course of its business of manufacture and sale of Beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor[2] and as to the operation and effect of the Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai[3] and dated 27.12.2000 issued by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai [4]. On the sideways, a separate question is as to whether cash discount on the price offered by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited[5] is taxable in view of Explanation 2(iii) to Section 2(r) of the Act?
[2] 'IMFL'for short.

[3] 'SCCT for short

[4] PCCT for short

[5] TASMAC' for short

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.