Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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