Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"297 dj nj laca/kh vuqlwfp;ksa esa of.kZr oLrqvksa ds fooj.k ls mRiUu gks jgs O;kogkfjd dfBukb;ksa ds fujkdj.k ds mn~ns'; ls dfri; oLrqvksa ;Fkk computer related items, cash dispensers, loaders, processed meat, poultry ij dj nj Li"V fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA "

Relying upon the above, learned counsels for the petitioner- assessee contends that the intention of the Government was always to impose VAT @ 4% / 5%. It is further contended that the Government acknowledged the difficulties faced by different assessee who were dealing with computer items and therefore sought to clarify the specific rate of VAT leviable on such items. In furtherance of the same, the Entry No. 3 and 24 of Part A of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act were amended to include networking items and CAT-5 / CAT-6 cables for which the applicable rate of tax was 4% / 5%. Learned counsels contends that the said amendment was only clarificatory in nature and was having a beneficial intent to it and therefore the benefit of the same was available retrospectively as well. In this regard, learned counsels for the petitioner-assessee have also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment of Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur reported in (2006) 12 SCC 452. Further, in support of their contention that speech made by ministers, while introducing bills/budgets, can be relied on to throw light on the object and purpose of provisions of law, learned counsels have relied on Apex Court judgment of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. [2023/RJJP/012108] (11 of 22) [STR-182/2017] Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [(2003) 259 ITR 51 (SC)].