Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

53. The distinguishing features pointed out by a learned Judge in Tulsyan Nec. Ltd., appealed to the learned Judge against whose orders the present appeals arise. Hence, the learned Judge held that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Torrent Energy Ltd. is not worthy of acceptance.

54. But, in the order under appeal, the learned Judge omitted to see that the comparison drawn between Section 5-A of the Gujarat VAT Act and Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act are of no application to the cases on hand. Section 5-A of the Gujarat VAT Act and Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act deal with zero rating. Therefore, they are not what are applicable to the cases on hand.

55. What are applicable to the cases on hand are Section 9 of the Gujarat VAT Act and Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act. Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 seeks to levy purchase tax on every dealer, who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person, any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances in which no tax is payable by that registered dealer on the sale price of such goods under the Act. But, this levy is made only when any of the activities indicated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 are performed.

56. In contrast to the above, Section 9 of the Gujarat VAT Act, as amended by Amendment Act 9 of 2008, sought to levy purchase tax whenever a dealer, liable to pay tax under the Act, purchased taxable goods, the sale of which is zero rated under Section 5-A. Section 9 of the Gujarat VAT Act did not speak about the levy of purchase tax upon those purchases, which happened under circumstances in which no tax was payable on the sale of such goods. Therefore, Section 9 of the Gujarat VAT Act and Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act may not be comparable.

59. Interestingly, the Gujarat High Court was also confronted with an amendment made to Sections 5-A and 9(5) of the Gujarat VAT Act, under Amendment Act 9 of 2008, in the light of the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Gujarat SEZ Act, 2004. Section 22 of the Gujarat SEZ Act, which contained the clause relating to overriding effect, was anterior to the amendments introduced in 2008 to the Gujarat VAT Act. Section 22 of the Gujarat SEZ Act also used the very same phrase "for the time being in force", as is used in Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu SEZ Act, 2005. Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 is a subsequent legislation and hence, it is contended before us, as it was contended before the Gujarat High Court that the phrase "for the time being in force" cannot cover a subsequent legislation or a subsequent amendment. But, the Gujarat High Court overruled the said objection on the basis of three decisions of the Supreme Court in Thyssen Stahlunion v. Steel Authority of India [AIR 1999 SC 3923], Management of MCD v. Prem Chand Gupta [AIR 2000 SC 454] and Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi [(2003) 11 SCC 549].