MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Holds Appellants Not Entitled to Sales Tax Exemption for Tea Blending after Amendment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 12 May 2023 , In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that M/s. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. and another appellant are not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax for their tea blending activities. The court held that the appellants' claim for exemption became invalid after the amendment to the definition of "manufacture" under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

The appellants had established a small-scale industrial unit for manufacturing blended tea and were granted an eligibility certificate for tax exemption under the Act. However, the definition of "manufacture" was subsequently amended, excluding "tea blending" from its purview. This amendment led to the cessation of the appellants' eligibility for the sales tax exemption.

The appellants contended that their legitimate expectation and vested rights were violated by the amendment. They argued that the right to exemption, once granted, cannot be taken away arbitrarily. They further invoked the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel to support their claim.

However, the Supreme Court rejected these contentions, emphasizing that there cannot be promissory estoppel against a statute. The court clarified that the grant of exemption from sales tax is always subject to fulfillment of conditions and falls within the domain of the state government's policy decision.

The court observed that the amendment to the definition of "manufacture" resulted in the appellants ceasing to be manufacturers of blended tea. As a consequence, they no longer qualified for the exemption under the Act. The court categorized the withdrawal of the exemption as prospective, emphasizing that the appellants' entitlement ceased from the date of the amendment.

Regarding the appellants' claim of vested rights, the court distinguished between vested rights and existing rights. It held that the case involved an existing right, which can be varied, modified, or withdrawn based on subsequent amendments.

The court also highlighted the relevance of Section 39 of the Act, which outlines the conditions for claiming exemption. It noted that the term "manufacture" plays a crucial role in determining eligibility for exemption. As the appellants ceased to be manufacturers of blended tea after the amendment, they could no longer avail the exemption.

Supreme Court agreed with the lower tribunal and the high court's view that the appellants were not entitled to sales tax exemption for their tea blending activities. The court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that nobody can claim exemption from sales tax as a matter of right. The judgment serves as a reminder that policy decisions regarding exemptions are within the authority of the state government.

DATE OF DECISION : May 12, 2023

 

M/s. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.  vs Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors.

Latest Legal News