Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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