Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

No Bar on Levying Sales Tax on Silk Sarees: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Government's Stance"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal decision by the Supreme Court of India, the appeal of 'Saree Sansar' against the Delhi Government's sales tax imposition on silk sarees was dismissed. The case, presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, revolved around the contention of the appellant regarding the levying of state sales tax on silk sarees, which the appellant argued was not permissible under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (ADE Act) and certain constitutional provisions.

The appellant, Saree Sansar, challenged an assessment order that imposed a 12% state sales tax for the period from January 15, 2000, to March 31, 2000. They argued that silk sarees, being “declared goods” under the ADE Act, should not be subject to state sales tax. Additionally, they claimed that the rate should not exceed 4% as per Section 15(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act).

The respondents countered that since silk fabric was removed from the declared goods list under Section 14 of the CST Act in 1968, there was no restriction on levying a higher tax rate. Furthermore, they argued that the additional duty on silk sarees was nil, thus not contributing to the share of Delhi in the ADE Act proceeds, justifying the state's tax imposition.

In its assessment, the Supreme Court observed that the deletion of silk fabric from the declared goods under Section 14 of the CST Act post-May 1968 removed the cap on the sales tax rate, rendering the argument based on Section 15(1) of the CST Act inapplicable. Regarding the ADE Act, the Court noted that no additional duty was payable on silk sarees, and thus, the proviso allowed states to levy sales tax without sharing the additional duty proceeds. This, the Court found, nullified the appellant's argument against the tax imposition.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision, finding no error in its judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Saree Sansar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Similar News