Supreme Court of India
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1109
- Decided
- 14 November 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- R F NARIMAN
Holding
The appellant is not entitled to claim set‑off of VAT against Entry Tax because the conditions of Section 3(2) second proviso are not met, and the provision is constitutionally valid.
Summary
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) imports crude oil into Bihar, refines it and sells petroleum products to two oil marketing companies (BPCL and HPCL) and to local retailers. IOCL pays Entry Tax when the products enter the Patna local area but claims that Value Added Tax (VAT) should be set off against this Entry Tax under Section 3(2) of the Bihar Entry Tax Act. The State of Bihar denied the set‑off, arguing that the conditions of the proviso were not met; the High Court upheld the denial. The Supreme Court examined whether the proviso is constitutionally valid, whether interest can be levied, and whether the set‑off is permissible. It held that the statutory conditions for set‑off – the dealer must be liable to VAT on the imported goods, must incur VAT at the prescribed rate, and the sale must be by the importer – are not satisfied, so IOCL cannot claim the set‑off. The Court also held that the provision is not ultra‑vires, and that no interest can be charged as there is no statutory basis. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to determine the exact quantum of Entry Tax demand to be struck down.
Issues considered
- Whether the second proviso to Section 3(2) of the Bihar Entry Tax Act is ultra vires the Constitution (Article 14).
- Whether interest can be levied on the Entry Tax demand in the absence of a statutory provision.
- Whether Entry Tax is payable when goods merely enter a local area and are sold without consumption therein.
- Whether the assessment can be reopened under Section 33 of the Bihar VAT Act with reference to Section 8 of the Entry Tax Act.
- Whether an assessment under Section 33 of the VAT Act is permissible after the four‑year period prescribed in Section 31 of the VAT Act.
- Whether the conditions for set‑off of VAT against Entry Tax under Section 3(2) second proviso are satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Finance Act, 1981s. 3(1)
- Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993s. 3(1), s. 3(2)
- Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005s. 13(1), s. 14, s. 16, s. 2, s. 24, s. 31, s. 33, s. 35
- Central Sales Tax Act, 1956s. 4
Subjects
Entry TaxVATSet‑offConstitutional LawArticle 14TaxationOil IndustryBiharAssessment Re‑openingInterestRestitution
Judgment
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 477
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3018 of2017)
NOVEMBER 14, 2017 B
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.J
Entry Tax - Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for
Consumption. Ust; or Sale Therein Act, 1993 - s.3(2) - VAT set off
against the Entry Tax - Claim for - Appellant-Corporation imports C
crude oil from outside the State of Bihar and converts it into
petroleum products, like High Speed Diesel, Petrol etc - Some part
of these products are sold by appellants to two other oil marketing
companies (OMCs). namely BPCL and HPCLfrom its Patna branch-
Appellant pays Entry Tax when product enters the local area of
Patna - Grievance of the Appellant that when a sale is made to the D
OMCs. after payment of Entry Tax, VAT is not set off against the
Entry Tax - High Court agreed with the Advance Rulings Authority,
and rejected the case of the appellant u!s.3(2) second proviso of
the Entry Tax. stating that the set off would not be allowable under
the aforesaid proviso - Held: The following conditions need to be
E
satisfied for claim of set off uls.3(2) - (i) u!s.3(2) the tax leviable by
way of Entry Tax can only be paid by every dealer liable to pay
under the VAT Act; (ii) The set off can only be granted !f assessee is
an importer of scheduled goods, who is liable to pay tax under the
VAT Act; (iii) Assessee must incur tax liability at rates specified u/
s.14 of the VAT'Act; (iv) This must only be by virtue of the sale of F
imported scheduled goods; and (v) "His" tax liability under the
VAT Act will then stand reduced to the extent of tax paid under the
Act - In instant case. appellant is a registered dealer and is thus
liable to pay tax under the VAT Act, condition (i) is fulfilled -
Condition (ii) however, is not fulfilled, as notification dated G
04.05.2006 under Bihar Value Added Tax Act. 2005 states that the
levy is at the point of sale by oil companies to the retailer or direct
to the consumer - There is no levy of any VAT, when a sale is effected
by the appellant to BPCL and HPCL - The VAT gets levied only at
the next point in chain of sales, which is sale from BPCL and HPCL
to their retailers - So, though appellant is an importer of scheduled H
477
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A goods. hut is hot liable to pay tax under the VAT - Condition (iii) is
also not fulfilled, as there being no levy on the appellant. the
appellant does not incur any tax liability u/s.14 of the VAT Act - So
far as CondiMon (iv) is concerned, in any case, this must he by
virtue of sale of the very imported scheduled goods. which means
that the sale must be by the appellant itself and not by the other
B
OMCs, and thus condition (iv) is also not fa/filled - Condition (v)
must he that "'his" i.e. the appellant :v tax liability under the VAT Act
will then stand reduced, and this is only to the extent of tax paid
under the Act - This condition is also not met inasmuch as the set
off is person specific and not goodv specific - Thus. on literal
c reading of s. 3(2) second proviso. the appellant would not be entitled
to claim set off - Bihar Value Added Tax Act. 2005 - ss. 3. 13. 16 -
Bihar Finance Act. 1981.
Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for
Consumptwn. Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 - Entry Tax -
D Exigihility - Appellant-Corporation imports crude oil from outside
the State of Bihar - Crude oil is processed and converted into
petroleum products, like High Speed Diesel, Petrol etc - Some part
of these products are sold by appellants to two other oil marketing
companies (6JMCs). namely BPCL and HPCL from its Patna
branch - Appellant pays Entry Tax when product enters the local
E
area of Patna - Grievance of the Appellant that when a sale is
made to the OMCs, after payment of Entry Tax, VAT is not set off
against the Entry Tax - Set off of VAT. as claimed by the appellant
was allowed until 1he year 2014 - However. pursuant to audit
objections. set o.fl that had been allowed, were re-opened and then
F disallowed - The Entry Tax demand arising from such disallowance
for the assessment years 2008-09 Ji// 2014-15 amounted to
Rs. l,683.03 crores - Appellant contended it was not given
opportunity to demonstrate that a large portion of demanded amount
relates to sales that were made by HPCL and BPCL outside the
local area of Patna. which would. therefore. not attract EntryTax at
G all - Held: After audit objections. when a show cause notice was
issued by the authority. the assessee repeatedly asked for time to
make a detailed objection on the merits of the case - However,
without asking for further data and hack up details the Assistant
Commissionel' of Commercial Taxes passed an assessment order
H immediately thereafter - Appellant accordingly now given
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 479
opportunity to approach the Appellate Tribunal wiih all relevant A
materials in this behalf: and Tribunal to render its finding as to how
much of the demand of Elltry Tax for the assessment years in question
would have to he struck down.
Tax/Taxation:
Taxing statutes - On touchstone of Art.14 - Held: When ii B
comes to taxing statutes. the law laid down hy the Supreme Court is
clear that Art.14 of the Constitution can be said to be breached
only when there is perversity or gross disparity resulting in clear
and hostile discrimination practiced by the legislature. without any
rational justification for the same - Constitution of India - Art.14. c
RightY and Privileges - Set off - Held: No assessee can claim
set off as a matter of right and levy of Entry Tax cannot he assailed
as unconstitutional only because set off is not given.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
D
HELD: 1. The set off in question depends upon the
Interpretation of Section 3(2) of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods
into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993.
The following conditions need to be satisfied for claim of set off
under the said provision:
E
(i) First and foremost, under Section 3(2) itself, the tax leviable
by way of Entry Tax can only be paid by every dealer liable to pay
tax under the VAT Act;
(ii) The set off can only be granted if the assessee is an importer
of scheduled goods, who is liable to pay tax under the VAT Act;
F
(iii)The assessee must incur tax liability at the rates specified
under Section 14 of the VAT Act;
(iv) This must only be by ~irtue of the sale of imported scheduled
goods; and
(v) "His" tax liability under the VAT Act will then stand reduced G
to the extent of tax paid under the Act. [Para 12] [500-B-D)
2. For condition (i) to be satisfied, it will be seen that the
tax leviable under the Entry Tax Act shall be paid by every dealer
liable to pay tax under the VAT Act. Under Section 3(1) of the
VAT Act, all persons who are registered dealers under the Bihar H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Finance Act, 1981, as it stood before its repeal, are liable to pay
tax under the said Act on sales and purchases made by them.
There is no dispute that the Appellant is a registered dealer under
the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and is thus liable to pay tax under
the VAT Act. <::ondition (i), therefore, is certainly fulfilled. [Para
13 I [500-E-F)
B
3.1 So far as Condition (ii) is concerned, the Appellant is an
importer of scheduled goods, viz., petroleum products. Words
and expressions that are not defined under the Entry Tax Act
shall have the meaning assigned to them under the VAT Act,
C (See Section 2(2) of the Entry Tax Act). Under the VAT Act,
"importer" is defined. It can be seen from the aforesaid definition
that an importer would necessarily refer to a dealer who Imports
scheduled goods from outside the State. [Para 14) [500-F-G; 501-
A)
3.2 As is clear from Section 13(1) of the VAT Act, all sales
D of Schedule II and III goods have to suffer a levy of tax at each
point in the series of sales by a dealer liable to pay tax under the
said Act. This ls subject, however, to Section 16, by which once
the goods have suffered tax, input tax credit is given at every
stage thereafter. This scheme applies generally down the line to
E all Schedule II and III goods. However, when it comes to tax on
the sale of goods specified in Schedule IV, Item 3 of which includes
High Speed Diesel oil and light diesel oil, the levy under the said
Act is only at such point as the State Government may, by
notification, specify. The notification dated 4th May, 2006, clearly
states that when it comes to motor spirit, High Speed Diesel .oil
F and light diesel oil, the levy is at the point of sale by oil companies
to the retailer or direct to the consumer. On a reading of the
aforesaid notification, it is clear that when a sale is effected by
the Appellant to BPCL and HPCL, there is no levy of any VAT
that is contemplated at this point. The VAT gets levied only at
G the next point in the chain of sales, which is the sale from BPCL
and HPCL to th~ir retailers and/or consumers. Thus, it is clear
that the second condition is not fulfilled as the importer of the
scheduled goods i.e. the Appellant is not at all liable to pay tax
under the VAT Act. [Para 15) [501-B-E)
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 481
3.3 So far as the Condition (iii) is concerned, there being A
no levy on the Appellant, the Appellant docs not incur any tax
liability at the rates specified under Section 14 of the VAT Act.
(Para 16] (501-E-F]
3.4 So far as Condition (iv) is concerned, in any case, this
must be by Yirtue of sale of the very imported scheduled goods, B
which means that the sale must be by the Appellant itself and not
by the other OMCs. This becomes clear from the second part of
this provision which reads: " ••. ;.•... or sale of goods manufactured
by consuming such Imported scheduled goods ••.•••••• " [Para 171
(501-F-G]
c
3.5 Further, Condition (v) must be that "his" i.e. the
Appellant's tax liability under the VAT Act will then stand reduced,
and this is only to the extent of tax paid under the Act. This
condition is also not met inasmuch as the set off is person specific
and not goods specific, as is correctly contended on behalf of the
Revenue. [Para 18] .(501-G-H; 502-A] D
3.6 Thus, it will be seen that on a literal reading of Section
3(2) second proviso, the Appellant would not be entitled to claim
set off. (Para 19] (503-C]
4.1 Further, pica of appellant. was that a literal reading of E
the second proviso to Section 3 would lead to a situation where
the same goods would suffer different rates of tax and this would
be discriminatory. This plea docs not avail the Appellant for the
simple reason that there are two taxes which arc levied In the
present case, one is VAT and the other is Entry Tax. In one
case, YAT is set off against the Entry Tax and in another, VAT Is F
not so set off. Any anomaly arising from the aforesaid position
would not lead to a charge of clear and hostile discrimination.
[Para 23] [504-E-F]
4.2 \Vhcn it comes to taxing statutes, the law laid down by
this Court is clear that Article 14 of the Constitution can be said G
to be breached only when there is perversity or gross disparity
resulting in clear. and hostile discrimination practiced by the
legislature, without any rational justification for the same. Further,
no asscssee can claim set off as a matter of right and the levy of
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Entry Tax cannot be assailed as unconstitutional only because
set off is not given. [Paras 24, 25) [504-F-G; 505-A)
5. Appellant however pointed out that after the audit
objections; a show cause notice was issued by the authority, which
was replied ~o by two letters, in which the assessee repeatedly
B asked for time to make a detailed objection on the merits of the
case. Finally, by another letter the assessee was able to muster
certain certificates for the assessment years in question given
by BPCL and HPCL to show that a large amount of the sales
made by them in turn to their retail consumers and though retail
outlets were outside the local area of Patna, and, therefore, not
c exigible to Entry Tax at all. The Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial laxes without asking for further data and backup
details passed an assessment order immediately thereafter and
issued demand notices. The Revenue appeared to have been in
a great hurry to issue the aforesaid demand notices, and since
D OMCs have complete details of sales made for the years in
question to their retail customers and outlets outside the area of
Patna, opportunity ought to be given to Appellant to produce all
relevant docul)lentary material, which would show that a large
amount of the demand for these years (of Rs.1,683.03 crores),
would be liable to be done away with as Entry Tax would not be
E leviable on these transactions at all as the consumption, use or
sale of petroleum products has taken place outside the local area
of Patna. Indeed, all these sales must have suffered Entry Tax in
the local area outside Patna, where such retail sales were made,
provided, of course, that they were made within the State of Bihar.
F Appellant to approach the Appellant Tribunal with all details and
request the Appellate Tribunal to render findings as required by
this judgment, as expeditiously as possible. [Para 31) (506-E-H;
507•A-C]
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar &
G Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 642 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 868;
The State of Tamil Nadu v. MK. Kandaswami & Ors.
(1975) 4 SCC 745 : [1976] 1 SCR 38; A. V Fernandez
v. The Sta/e of Kera/a (1957) SCR 837; State of Bihar
& Ors. v. Bihar Chamber a_( Commerce & Ors. (1996) 9
SCC 136 : [1996] 2 SCR 184 ; Commissioner of
H Income Tax, Bangalore v. J.H. Got/a, Yadagiri (1985)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 483
4 sec 343 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 711 - held A
inapplicable.
Ayurveda Pharmacy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1989) 2 SCC 285 : (1989) 2 SCR 37; Aashirwad Films
v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 624 : (2007]
7 SCR310; State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Deepak B
Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. (2007)
10 SCC 342 : [ 2007) 6 SCR 525; Union of India &
Ors. v. N.S.Rathnam and Sons (2015) 10 SCC 681 :
[2015] 8 SCR 751 - distinguished.
The Twyford Tea Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Kera/a
& Anr. (1970) 1 SCC 189 : [1970] 3 SCR 383; Ganga c
Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(1980) 1 sec 223 : (1980) 1 SCR 769; P.M.
Ashwathanarayana Setty & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. (1989) Supp. (1) SCC 696 : [1988] 3 Suppl.
SCR 155; Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. D
v. Commissioner (){Sales Tax & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 624:
[1992] 3 SCR 683; State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro
Tech Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (12) SCALE 88 - relied on.
State of Rajastha11 & Am: v. J.K. Synthetics Limited &
Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 518 : [2011] 10 SCR 993; Nava
E
Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited v. Transmission Corporation
of Andhra Pradesh Limited & Am: (2011) 1 SCC 216 :
[2010] 14 SCR 900 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004) 4 Suppl. SCR 868 held inapplicable Para 19 F
[1976] 1 SCR 38 held inapplicable Para 20
(1957) SCR 837 held inapplicable Para 21
[1996) 2 SCR 184 held inapplicable Para 22
[1985) 2 Suppl. SCR 711 relied on Para 22
[1970] 3 SCR 383 relied on Para 24 G
[1980] 1 SCR 769 relied on Para 24
[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 155 relied on Para 24
[1992] 3 SCR 683 relied on Para 25
2017 (12) SCALE 88 relied on Para 25
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A [1989] 2 SCR 37 distinguished Para 26
[2007) 7 SCR 310 distinguished Para 26
(2007) 6 SCR 525 distinguished Para 26
(2015) 8 SC~ 751 distinguished Para 26
(2011) 10 SCR 993 referred to Para 29
B
(20101 14 SCR 900 referred to Para 29
, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3018
of2017
From th¢ Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2013 ofthe High Court
c of J udicaturc at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2153 5 of 2011.
WITH
SLP(C)Nos.15875, 15899, 15900, 15893, 15926, 15896, 16192
of2017
D Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv., Hrishikesh Baruah, Ms. Radhika Gupta,
Pranav Jain, Kshitij Paliwal, Suiddhant Kaushik.Advs. for the Appellant.
S. Ganesh Sr. Adv., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, D. S. Parmar, Sujeeta
Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judipnent of the Court was delivered by
E R. F. NARlMAN, J. I. The present appeal and special leave
petitions arise out of demands made from the Appellant for payment of
Entry Tax under the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for
Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act. 1993 (hereinafter referred to as
the Entry Tax Act).
F 2. The Appellant has its marketing division in the State of Bihar
with branches, inter alia, at Barauni and Patna. It is from these branches
that sales of petroleum products are effected. The Corporation receives
crude oil, which is imported from outside the State ofBihar, which then
enters Bihar, where the Corporation has its oil refinery; and after
G undergoing ceqain processes, crude oil is converted into petroleum
products, like High Speed Diesel, Petrol etc. The products manufactured
in the Bihar oil refinery are then sent to a branch in Patna, mainly through
a pipeline constructed specifically for this purpose. Some part of these
petrolenm products, namely. High Speed Diesel and Petrol are sold by
the Appellant to two other oil marketing companies (OMCs), namely,
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 485
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum A
Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), who then take the products from the depot of
the Corporation situated in Patna and thereafter sell the products to their
retail dealers or through their petroleum outlets. The Appellants, apart
from the sales made to these OM Cs, also sell the aforesaid petroleum
products to local retailers and through petroleum outlets in Patna. The B
Appellant pays Entry Tax at the rate of 16% when the product enters
the local area of Patna and 24.5% VAT is paid and set off against the
Entry Tax under Section 3(2) second proviso of the Entry Tax Act for
sales made within the local area. The grievance of the Appellant in the
present appeals is that when a sale is made to the OM Cs, after payment
of Entry Tax, VAT is not set off against the Entry Tax. VAT is not actually C
paid by the Appellant by reason of a notification dated 4"' May, 2006
under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act), where, in case
of petroleum products sold by the Appellant to OM Cs, the levy itself is
at the point of sale by the aforesaid OM Cs to their retailers or directly to
their consumers, and this being the case, the set off of such VAT paid, as D
claimed by the Appellant, was allowed until the year 2014. However,
pursuant to certain audit objections raised by the Accountant General,
Bihar, the aforesaid set offs that were allowed to the Appellant, were
re-opened with effect from the assessment year 2008-09, as a result of
which set offs that were allowed were now disallowed. The Entry Tax
demand arising from such disallowance for the assessment years 2008- E
09 till 2014-15 amount to Rs.1,683.03 crores.
3. In Civil Appeal No.3018of2017, the impugned judgment dated
22"d October, 2013 of the Patna High Court agreed with the Advance
Rulings Authority, and rejected the case of the Appellant under Section
3(2) second proviso of the Entry Tax Act, stating that the set off would F
not be allowable under the aforesaid proviso.
4. In the seven Special Leave Petitions before us by, a common
judgment dated 19'' April, 2017, a Division Bench of the Patna High
Court framed five questions as follows:
"i) Whether the second proviso to Section 3(2) of the Entry Tax G
Act is ultra vires to the Constitution?
(ii) Whether interest can be levied in the matter oflate payment
of entry tax under the Entry Tax Act, by virtue of the provisions
of the Bihar Finance Act, and, with the aid of Section 8 of the
Entry Tax Act? H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A (iii) Whether entry tax is liable to be paid when the goods only
enter the local area and after such entry is subjected to sell only
without there being any use of consumption of the goods in the
local area?
(iv) Whether based on audit objection as contemplated under
B the provisions of Section 33 of the VAT Act, assessment can be
re-opened with the aid of Section 8 of the Entry Tax Act?
(v) Whether the assessment undertaken under Section 33 of the
VAT Act is permissible after a period of four years in view of
the provision ofSection 31 of the VAT Act?"
c 5. Qucstie)ns 1, 3, 4 and 5 were answered against the assessee,
but question 2 was answered in its favour by stating that since there was
no substantive provision by which interest could be levied, interest that
was charged to the Appellant by the assessment orders in question would
have to be set aside.
D 6. Shri Arvind Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the Appellant, has referred in copious detail to various provisions of
the VAT Act, Rules made thereunder and Form RT-I made under the
VAT Act. He also referred in detail to various provisions of the Entry
Tax Act. It is his case that the Entry Tax Act in Bihar, unlike other Entry
E Tax Acts, was essentially to ensure that VAT was collected under the
VAT Act in the State. According to him, the moment products contained
in Schedule IV of the said Act suffer tax, the scheme of the Entry Tax
Act is that a set off on such goods, which bear VAT, is allowable.
According to the learned counsel, Section 3(2) second proviso should be
construed in such a manner as would accord with this object and set off,
F as claimed by the Appellant, cannot, therefore, be denied to it. According
to the learned counsel, it is clear that this practice of allowing set off
was followed right up to 20 I 4, showing that both the Government as
well as the assessee were clear that the provision had to be worked in
this fashion. The reason for retrospectively reopening the assessments
G
made from2008-09 is due to an audit objection raised only in the year
2014, after which the assessee has so arranged its affairs that set off
would be claimable and has, in fact, been allowed by the authorities.
According to the learned counsel, the audit objection was itself only on
the footing that a 2006 amendment had changed the definition contained
in Section 2(1 )(c) of the Entry Tax Act of the "entry of goods" and it is
H for this reason that set off was disallowed, and not the reasons given
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR & 487
ANR. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
later by the State. According to the learned counsel, what has to be seen A
is the overall picture qua the goods under the Entry Tax Act and once it
is clear that the aforesaid goods suffer VAT, then a set off becomes
payable. According to the learned counsel, a large portion ofRs.1,683.03
crores that is demanded relate to sales that are made by HPCL and
BPCL outside the local area of Patna, which would, therefore, not attract B
Entry Tax at all. This has not been segregated, and if segregated, the
demand for the assessment years in question would fall by at least
Rs. l,000 crores. The Appellants were given no opportunity to
demonstrate this in detail, despite the fact that they were able to give
certificates by HPCL andBPCL for all the assessment years in question
that those companies had, in fact, effected sales worth over a thousand C
crores outside the area of Patna.
7. According to Shri Datar, if this Court were to decide against
the appellant on the construction of Section 3(2) second proviso, then, in
any case, he would be liable to succeed, as the said proviso should be
read down to make it constitutionally valid, as otherwise it would fall foul D
ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel,
the same goods cannot bear different rates of tax which are ultimately
passed on to the consumers and this ex facie discrimination would,
therefore, make the proviso bad in law requiring this Court to read it
down, so that, at least so far the Appellant is concerned, a set off would
be granted. Also, according to him, in any case, the matter should go E
back to the Appellate Tribunal to determine as to how much of the sales
made by HPCL and BPCL would be outside the Patna area and,
therefore, not exigible to Entry Tax at all.
8. Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf
of the Revenue, has countered each of these submissions. According to F
the learned counsel, a plain reading of Section 3(2) second proviso of
the Entry Tax Act would make it clear that the provision is assessee
based and not goods based. According to the learned counsel, none of
the conditions of the second proviso have been met by the Appellant and
only ifthe said provision is completely rewritten, can the Appellant be G
given relief. Re-writing of the aforesaid provision, being a legislative
function, would, therefore, be outside the judiciary's ken. According to
the learned counsel, in any case, VAT and Entry Tax are separate taxes
levied under separate Entries of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The
granting of set off is a matter of indulgence and cannot be claimed as a
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A matter of right. It is of essence that the same person should have paid
both Entry Tax and VAT to claim set off In the present case, the
Appellant admittedly pays only Entry Tax and no VAT as there is no levy
on the Appellant when it sells oilto otherOMCs. According to the learned
counsel, Ai:ticle 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in the present
case for the reason that there is no clear and hostile discrimination, which
B
is the requirement of several judgments of this Court, before Article 14
can be used to strike down tax legislation. In any event, according to the
learned counsel, striking down the second proviso would only result in
no i;<:t off being claimable at all and would be counterproductive. The
leame<l counsel made a fervent plea that interest by way of restitution,
c at least, should,.bc giY<;m to the Government since the Writ Petitions that
were filed in 2014 resulted in stay orders which have continued till date,
making it impossible for the State to recover interest on the demands
made. He cited anumberofjudgments to support all these propositions.
9. Having heard learned counsel for both the partieS; it is necessary
D to set out some of the provisions of the two Acts in question. Since we
are directly C{l)llcerned with the Bihar Entry Tax Act, the following
provis:ions need to be adverted to:
"2. Definitions.- (I) In this Act unless the context otherwise
requires,-
E (c) "E>'ltry of goods", with all its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions, means, entry of goods:
(i) into: a local area from any place outside such area,
(ii) into a local area from any place outside the State,
F (iii) into a local area from any place outside the territory oflndia,
for consumption, use or sale therein.
Provided that in case of such goods which are liable to tax under
Section-12(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, entry of goods
shall mean entry of goods into local area from any place outside
G the State for consumption, use or sale therein.
Explanation- Entry of goods into a local area for consumption,
use or sale therein from any place outside the territory of India
shall also be dee,med to be an entry of goods for the purposes of
this Act.
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR & 489
ANR. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
3. Charge of Tax - (I) There shall be levied and collected a tax A
on entry of scheduled goods into a local area for consumption,
use or sale therein for the purpose of development of trade,
commerce and industry in the State, at such rate, not exceeding
twenty percent, of the import value of such goods, as may be
specified by the State Government in a notification published in B
a official gazette subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided different rates for different scheduled goods may be
specified by the State Government.
Provided further, that if an importer claims that he imported goods
notified under sub-section (I) not forthe purpose of consumption, c
use or sale, the burden ofproving that the import was for purposes
other than for consumption, use or sale shall be on importer
importing such goods and making such claim.
Provided further, that if an importer claims that he imported goods
notified under sub-section (I) not forthe purpose of consumption, D
use or sale, the burden of providing that the import was for
purposes other than for consumption, use or sale, shall be on
importer importing such goods and making such claim.
(IA).The tax under sub-section (I) shall be continued to be levied
till such time as is required to improve infrastructure within the E
State such as power, road, market condition etc. with a view to
facilitate better marlcet condition for trade, commerce and industry
and to bring it to the level of, National average.
(2) The tax leviable under this Act shall be paid by every dealer
liable to pay tax under Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 or any
F
other person who brings or causes to be brought into the local
areas such scheduled goods whether on his own account or on
account of his principal or takes delivery or is entitled to take
delivery of such goods on such entry:
Provided no tax shall be leviable in respect of entry of such G
scheduled goods effected by a person other than the dealer if,
the value of such goods does not exceed one thousand in a year.
Provided further that where an importer of Scheduled goods
liable to pay tax under the Act, incurs tax liability, at the rate
specified under Section 14 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act,
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 2005 (Act 27 of2005), by virtue of sale of imported Scheduled
goods or sale of goods manufactured by consuming such imported
Scheduled goods, his tax liability under the Bihar Value Added
Tax Act, 2005 (Act 27 of2005) shall stand reduced to the extent
of tax paid under the Act:
B Provided also that if the sale of such scheduled goods is exempted
from tax under any notification issued under Section 7 of the
Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, reduction of his liability under
the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as provided in this section
or any notification there under, issued shall not be made.
c (I) The amendment made in section 3 of the said Act shall be
deemed to be, and to always have been, for all purposes, as
validity and effectively in force at all material times (w.e.f.
25.2.199$)
(2) Any assessment, collection, adjustment, reduction or
D computation made or any other action taken or anything done or
purported to have been taken or done under the Bihar Finance
Act, 1981 and the BiharTaxon Entry of Goods into Local Areas
for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 and notifications
issued and rules made there under shall be deemed to be and to
have al'Mays been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively,
assessed, collected, adjusted, reduced, computed or taken or done
as if the said Act as amended by this Ordinance had been in
force at all material times and accordingly, notwithstanding
anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any court,
or tribunal or other authority:-
F ( a) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained of continued
in court or tribunal or other authority for the refund of any amount
received or realized by way of such tax;
(b) no colU't, tribunal or other authority shall enforce any decree
or order directing the refund or any amount received or realized
li by way of such tax;
(c) recoveric, shall b~ made in accordance with the third proviso
to subsection (2) of Section 3 of the BiharTax on Entry of Goods
Into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act,
1993 of all amounts which could have been collected as tax under
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BJHAR 491
[R. F. NARJMAN, J.]
the said Act by reason of amendment made in Section 3 by this A
Ordinance but which had not been collected.
(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or
omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an
offence which would not have been so punishable if this section
has not come into force. B
Provided that in case of a manufacturer the reduction in tax
liability as aforesaid shall only be allowed to industrial units of
the small scale sector, the medium scale sector and sick industrial
units:
Provided that the said reduction in tax shall be available to C
manufacturer if the imported scheduled goods are used or
consumed in the manufacture of goods which are sold within the
State of Bihar or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce
or in the course of export out of the territory of India. In case
only a part of the goods manufactured out ofimported Scheduled D
goods are sold within the State ofBihar or in the course ofinter-
State trnde and commerce or in the course of export out of the
territory of India, the claim for reduction in tax liability shall stand
proportionately reduced:
Provided further that such reduction from the tax liability shall E
be admissible only if the dealer specifically mentions in the returns,
filed under Section-24 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005
(Act27 of2005), the Number, date and the amount of the Challan
by which the payment of Entry tax in relation to which the
reduction has been claimed, has been made.
F
(3) The liability to pay tax on Scheduled goods shall only be at
the point of first entry into a local area and any subsequent entry
or entries into any other local area or areas of the said Scheduled
goods shall not be subject to tax provided the subsequent importing
dealer produces before the assessing officer the original copy of
the cash memo, invoice, bill or challan issued to him by the dealer G
from whom he purchased or received the said Scheduled goods,
and files a true and complete declaration in the Form and manner
prescribed:
Provided that no tax shall be levied and collected in respect of
any motor vehicle which was registered in any other State or H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Union Territory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a period
of fifteen months or more before the date on which it is registered
in the State under that Act.
THE BIJIAR TAX ON ENTRY OF GOODS INTO LOCAL
AREA ~ULES, 1993
B 8. Mann~r for claiming reduction in the liability to pay sales
tax.-( I) A claim for reduction in the liability to pay sales tax
shall be made by registered dealer who is entitled to claim such
reduction under sub-section (I) of section 4 or.in accordance
with the notification issued under sub-section (I) of Section 3 of
the Act.
c
(2) The claim shall be valid only when the amount of entry tax
has been paid on the concerned goods.
(3) The burden of proving the claim for reduction of sales tax
shall be on the dealer.
(4) Such qlaimshall be made by furnishing a statement in triplicate
D
in Form ET-X which shall be filed along with the quarterly return.
(5) On receipt of the claiminFormET-X, the authority prescribed
for assessment of tax shall scrutinize the same before the date
• for filing of the next quarterly return and shall satisfy itself
regarding the correctness of the claim. He shall make appropriate
E endorsement in the assessment record of the dealer and sign the
certificate in the said form.
(6) Two copies of the statement containing certificate of the
assessing authority shall be returned to the dealer. He shall furnish
one copy of the form to the authority prescribed under the Bihar
F Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to enable it to reduce the dealers
liability at the time of assessment of sales tax payable under the
said Act and shall keep other copy as evidence with himself.
FORM E.T.-X
(See Rule 8)
Statement of claim for reduction in the liability of sales
tax payable under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981
~onscquent upon payment of entry tax.
(To be furnished in triplicate)
H I. Name of the dealer.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 493
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
2. Style of business & full address A
3. Registration number under the B.T. on E. of G into L.A.
Ord., 1993
4. Registration No. under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
5. Period to which the claim relates. B
I ............ (Full name of the dealer) hereby request for reduction
in my liability of sales tax payable under the Bihar Finance Act,
1981 in accordance with the provision of sub-section (I) of
section 4 of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas
for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Ordinance, 1993 the c
notification issued under sub-section ( 12) of section 3 in respect
of the goods on which entry tax has been paid by me/us and
which have been sold subsequently and sales tax under the Bihar
Finance Act, 1981 has become payable.
PARTICULARS D
SI. Description Concerned Bill Quantity Value
NO. of schedule I Invoice I
l goods on Challan No. &
which entry date in case of
tax has been Motor Vehicles
paid by the mention
E
dealer. Chassis no. &
Engine No.
- .. also
I 2 3 4 5
.. ·
F
Amount of Period C.M. Bills Sales Sale tax Remarks
entry tax during I Invoice tax payable
paid which no. & date payable after
(Quote sold relating to reduction G
T.C. No. sale ofliability
& date)
6 7 8 9 10 11
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A I hereby declare and certify that the above particulars are collect
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I further certify that the amount of entry tax shown in this
statement has been paid by me.
Signature of the dealer or his declared manager.
B
CERTIFICATE
(To be signed by the assessing officer)
Certified that the particulars furnished in this statement have
been scrutinised by me and found to be correct. The amount of
C entry tax on the goods concerned, to the extent of which the
liability of sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 has been
claimed to be reduced has been duly paid by the dealer.
Signature & designation of the authority."
D 10. ~o far as the Bihar VAT Act is concerned, it is necessary to
refer to the following provisions:
"3. Charge of tax.- (1) Every dealer who is registered under
the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (Bihar Act 5of1981), as it stood
before its repeal by section 94, shall be liable, on or after the
commencement of this Act, to pay tax under th is Act on sale or
E
purchase, made by him.
(2) Every dealer to whom the provisions of sub-section (I) do
not apply and whose gross turnover of sales calculated from the
commencement of the year ending on the day immediately before
the commencement of the Act, exceeds the specified quantum,
F as applicable to him under the Bihar Finance Act, I 981, as it
stood before its repeal by Section 94, on the last day of such
year shall, in addition to the tax, ifany, payable by him under any
other provision of this Act, be liable to pay tax under this Act on
all his sales.
G (3) Every dealer to whom the provisions of sub-section ( 1) or
sub-section (2) do not apply, shall be liable to pay tax under this
Act -
(a) on all his sales of goods which have been imported by him
from any place outside Bihar, with effect from the day on which
H he effects first sale of such goods; or
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 495
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
(b) in any other case, from the date on which his gross turnover, A
during a period not exceeding twelve months, first exceeded such
taxable quantum as may be prescribed:
Provided that the taxable quantum as may be prescribed under
this sub-section shall not exceed ten lakh rupees.
Provided further that different taxable quantum may be prescribed B
for different classes of dealers.
13. Point or points in series of sales at which Sales Tax
shall be levied.- (I) (a) Subject to the provisions of section 16
and section 17, tax on sale of goods shall be levied at each point
in a series of sales in Bihar by a dealer liable to pay tax under C
this Act.
(b) Where the tax is levied at each point of sale, the tax payable
by a dealer at any point shall be the amount arrived at after
deducting, the input tax credit specified under section 16 or section
17, from the tax computed at that point of sale. D
(2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I),
the tax on the sale of goods specified in Schedule IV shall be
levied at such point or points in a series of sales in the State as
the State Government may, by notification, specify.
(b) Where by a notification published under clause (a), the State E
Government specifies, in respect of any goods specified in
Schedule IV, that the tax shall be levied at the first point of their
sale in the State of Bihar by a dealer, subsequent sales of the
same goods in the State ofBihar shall not be levied to tax, if the
dealer making subsequent sale produces before the prescribed
authority the original copy of the cash memo, or invoice or bill F
· issued to him and files a true and complete declaration in the
form and in the inanner prescribed.
(c) Where by a notification published under clause (a), the State
Government specifies, in respect of any goods specified in
Schedule IV, that the tax shall be levied at more than one point G
or on all points of sale, the amount of tax paid at each preceding
stage of sale shall be adjusted against the amount of tax payable
at each subsequent stage of sale in the manner prescribed.
( d) The declaration referred to in clause (b) shall be issued by
the selling dealer to the purchasing dealer not later than the 30th H
496 SUPRIBME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A day of September of the year following the year to which such
sales relate.
(3) If upon information, the prescribed authority has reasons to
believe that the selling dealer has, without reasonable cause, failed
to issue to the purchasing dealer the declaration referred to in
B sub-section (2), he shall, after giving the selling dealer a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, direct that the selling dealer shall
pay, by way of penalty, a sum of rupees five thousand per month
for every month of default or the amount of tax involved,
whichever is less.
c 14. Rate of Tax.-(!) Tax shall be payable on the sale price of-
(a) the goods specified in the Schedule II, at the rate of one
percent;
(b) the goods specified in the Schedule III, at the rate of six
percent;
D
(bb) the g<iJods specified in the Schedule UIA, at the rate of five
percent;
( c) the goods specified in the Schedule IV, at the rate not below
ten percent and not exceeding fifty percent and subject to such
conditions and restrictions, as the State Government may, by
E
notification specify.
(d) any other goods, not specified in the Schedules I, II, III, IIIA
and N, at the rate of fifteen percent.
(2) The State Government may, by notification, alter any Schedule
F to this Act.
16. Input Tax Credit (3) No input tax credit under sub-section
( 1) shall be claimed or be allowed to a registered dealer -
(a) in respect of goods specified in Schedule-N or such other
goods as may be prescribed;
G
35. Taxable Turnover.- (I) For the purposes of this Act, the
taxable turnover of a dealer shall be that part of his gross turnover
which remains after deducting therefrom-
(f) sale priC1e at the subsequent stages of sale of such goods as
are specified in Schedule N of the Act as being subject to tax at
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 497
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
the first point of their sale in the State of Bihar, if necessary A
evidence as required by sub-section (2) of section 13 are filed
with the return filed by the dealer under sub-section (3) of
section24.
Schedule-IV
(See section 14) B
Goods
I. Country liquor including spiced country
liquor.
2. Portable spirit, wine or liquor whether
imported or manufactured in India. c
3. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel
Oil.
4. Motor Spirit.
5. Natural Gas. D
6. Aviation Turbine Fuel
7. Tobacco and tobacco products, except biri
and unmanufactured tobacco (commonly
known as ~'Khaini"), and other
unmannfactured tobacco used in E
manufacture ofbiri.
Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005
18. Taxable turnover- For purposes of section 35 the taxable
turnover of the dealer shall be that part of his gross turnover F
which remains after deducting therefrom:
( 6) Sale price at the subsequent stages of sale of such goods:
(a) specified in Schedule IV of the Act as being subject to tax at
the first point of their sale in Bihar, or
G
(b) on the sale whereof tax at the maximum retail price has been
paid at the first point of its sale in Bihar,
if necessary evidence as required by sub-section (2) of section
13 is annexed with the return required filed by the dealer under
sub-section (I) of section 24.
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 19. Returns. - ((2) Every registered dealer, other than a dealer
paying tax under sub-section (I) or sub-section (IA) or sub-
section (4) of Section 15, shall furnish to the authority specified
in Rule 62:-
(a) A qµarterly return in Form RT-I in duplicate;
B
(b)An annual return in Form RT-Ill in duplicate.
Provided that every registered developer, who has opted to pay
compounding tax under the provisions of Section-I 5C ofBihar
Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in lieu of tax payable under the Act
shall furnish to the authority specified in Rule 62-
c
( a) a quarterly return in Form RT-IA;
(b) an annual return in Form RT-IIIB.
FORM RT-I
[See Ruic 19(2))
D Quarterly Return under Section 24 of the Bihar Value
Added Tax Act, 2005
Name and style of the dealer:
TIN:
E Period of Return (Quarter and Year):
Part I (Details of turnover/transfers)
1 Gross Turnover lincludin!! value of debit notes):
Deductions:
2 Sales in the course of inter-state trade and
F commerce
3(i) Value of sales outside the State under Section 4
of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
3(ii) Value of stock transfer to outside the State
4 Value of sales return of goods within 6 months
of sale under the Act
G
5 Exnort sales
6 Amount of other allowable deductions [As per
Box Al
7 Total of deductions r2+3+4+5+61
8 Taxable turnover rl-71
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 499
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
Box A (other allowable deductions) A
Deduction on account of: Value
(ii) Sale of Petrol, Diesel, ATF and
Natural Gas by an Oil Company
to another Oil Company (a list of B
different goods to be annexed to
this return separately alongwith
their respective sales values)
[Details of goods sold to
different companies to be
submitted as ver Bax E-21 c
11. A notification dated 4th May, 2006 issued under Section 13(2)(a)
of the VAT Act reads as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section
(2) of section 13 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 the D
Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that tax on the sale of
goods specified in column 2 of the table appended hereto shall
be levied at point or points in a series of sales specified in column
3 of the said table subject to the conditions and restrictions
specified in column 4 of the said table.
E
Table
Description of Stage at which said tax Conditions
Goods is to be levied and
Restrictions
1 Motor spirit (A) At the point of
(Petrol) sale by importer if the F
goods are imported
from outside Bihar or
at the point of sale by
manufacturer if the
goods are
manufactured in
Biharor, (b) at the G
point of sale by oil
companies to the
retailer or direct to
the consumers, if
goods are sold by
these comnanies. H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A
2 High Speed Do
IDiesel Oil and
Li!!ht Oil
12. Since the set off in question depends upon the interpretation
B of Section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act, it is necessary to state, at the
outset, that the following conditions need to be satisfied for claim of set
off under the said provision:
(i) First and foremost, under Section 3(2) itself, the tax leviable by
way of Entry Tax can only be paid by every dealer liable to pay
tax under the VAT Act;
c
(ii) The set off can only be granted ifthe assessee is an importer of
scheduled goods, who is liable to pay tax under the VAT Act;
(iii) The assessee must incur tax liability at the rates specified under
Section 14 of the VAT Act;
D (iv) This must only be by virtue of the sale of imported scheduled
goods; and
(v) "His" taic liability under the VAT Act will then stand reduced to
the extemt of tax paid under the Act.
13. It will be seen that the tax leviable under the Entry Tax Act
E shall be paid by every dealer liable to Pl!Y tax under the VAT Act. Under
Section 3(1) of the VAT Act, all persons who are registered dealers
under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, as it stood before its repeal, are
liable to pay tax under the said Act on sales and purchases made by
them. There is no dispute that the Appellant is a registered dealer under
theBihar Finance Act, 1981 and is thus liable to pay tax under the VAT
F Act. Condition (i), therefore, is certainly fulfilled.
14. So fur as Condition (ii) is concerned, the Appellant is an importer
of scheduled goods, viz., petroleum products. Words and expressions
that are not defined under the Entry Tax Act shall have the meaning
assigned to them under the VAT Act, (See Section 2(2) of the Entry Tax
G Act). Under the VAT Act, "importer" is defined as follows:
"2. Definitions- In thisAct, unless the context otherwise requires:
(p) "importer" means a dealer who brings any goods into the
State of Bihar or to whom any goods are despatched from any
place outside the State of Bihar."
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 501
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
It can be seen from the aforesaid definition that an importer would A
necessarily refer to a dealer who imports scheduled goods from outside
the state. The question arises as to whether, on such goods, the Appellant,
as importer, is liable to pay tax under the VAT Act.
15. As is clear from Section 13(1) of the VAT Act, all sales of
Schedule II and III goods have to suffer a levy of tax at each point in the B
series of sales by a dealer liable to pay tax under the said Act. This is
subject, however, to Section 16, by which once the goods have suffered
tax, input tax credit is given at every stage thereafter. This scheme applies
generally down the line to all Schedule II and III goods. However, when
it comes to tax on the sale of goods specified in Schedule IV, Item 3 of
which includes High Speed Diesel oil and light diesel oil, the levy under C
the said Act is only at such point as the State Government may, by
notification, specify. This takes us to the notification dated 4"' May, 2006,
which clearly states that when it comes to motor spirit, High Speed
Diesel oil and light diesel oil, the levy is at the point of sale by oil
companies to the retailer or direct to the consumer. On a reading of the D
aforesaid notification, it is clear that when a sale is effected by the
Appellant to BPCL and HPCL, there is no levy of any VAT that is
contemplated at this point. The VAT gets levied only at the next point in
the chain of sales, which is the sale from BPCL and HPCL to their
·retailers and/or consumers. Thus, it is clear that the second condition is
not fulfilled as the importer of the scheduled goods i.e. the Appellant is E
not at all liable to pay tax under the VAT Act.
16. So far as the Condition (iii) is concerned, there being no levy
on the Appellant, the Appellant does not incur any tax liability at the
rates specified under Section 14 of the VAT Act.
F
17. So far as Condition (iv) is concerned, in any case, this must be
by virtue of sale of the very imported scheduled goods, which means
that the sale must be by the Appellant itself and not by the other OMCs.
This becomes clear from the second part of this provision which reads:
" .......... or sale of goods manufactured by consuming such G
imported scheduled goods ......... "
18. Further, Condition (v) must be that "his" i.e. the Appellant's
tax liability under the VAT Act will then stand reduced, and this is only to
the extent of tax paid under the Act. This condition is also not met
inasmuch as the set off is person specific and not goods specific, as is "
••
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A correctly contended by Shri Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing
on behalf of the Revenue.
19. Thus, it will be seen that on a literal reading of Section 3(2)
second proviso, the Appellant would not be entitled to claim set off.
However, Shri Datar relied strongly on the judgment in Associated
B Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC
642. In this judgment, two manufacturing units of the Appellant, post-
bifurcation ofthe State ofBihar, fell into the State ofJharkhand. Thanks
to an industrial policy to give incentives to existing units to encourage
additional production, the Appellant was exempted in terms of the
c aforesaid pol icy from payment of sales tax on additional production for
the period in question. The Entry Tax Act, as it then stood, was set out
in the judgment and this Court held that, despite the fact that sales tax on
cement was exempted, the Appellant was held to be a person who was
liable to pay tax as the question of exemption would arise only when
there is a liability to pay tax in the first place. The Appellant was liable to
D pay tax but for the exemption, and since it paid tax on the original
production, apart from the additional production, it would be entitled to
set off of tax paid under the Entry Tax Act. In our opinion, it is clear that
this judgment would have no direct application in the facts of the present
case, inasmuch as the aforesaid judgment related to exemption of sales
tax on production ofadditional cement in order that production of cement
E be boosted in the State. The expression "liable to pay tax" was held to
apply because the question of exemption would arise only if there is a
liability to pay tax in the first place. Cement was, at the relevant time,
"scheduled" goods and, therefore, sales tax was liable to be paid on
such goods. It is only on account of an exemption notification issued
F under Section 7 of the Act, as it then stood, that additional production of
cement stood exempted from payment of sales tax. In the present case,
there is no exemption at all. The present is a case where the importer
under the second proviso must first be liable to pay tax under the Act.
We have already seen that the Appellant is a registered dealer under
Section 3(1) of the VAT Act and would be a dealer liable to pay tax
G under the aforesaid Act within the meaning of the enacting part of Section
3(2) of the Entry Tax Act. However, it is clear that as importer of
scheduled goods, the Appellant must be liable to pay tax under the VAT
Act. As has aheady been found, the Appellant as an importer of
scheduled goods is not liable to pay tax as the levy of tax is itself
H postponed when the Appellant sells the oil to another OMC, and VAT is
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 503
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
leviable only on the transaction between the said OMC and its retailer or A
other customers. In the ACC (supra) case, the levy on cement was
always there, being a scheduled item, an exception to which by way of
exemption was allowed only on additional production of cement. It is
also important to note that the expression "by virtue of sale of imported
scheduled goods or sale of goods manufucturcd by consuming such B
imported scheduled goods ......." was added later by way ofamendment
and was not contained in Section 3(2) second proviso which was
construed in the ACC (supra) case. This condition has clearly not been
met in the present case as has been held by us hereinabove. In any
case, the effect ofthe aforesaid judgment has been nullified by the addition
of a third proviso to Section 3(2) by the Bihar Finance Act, 2006, which C
spec,ifically provides that exempted goods will not be entitled to set off.
For all these reasons, we are of the view that this judgment does not
take the Appellant's case very much further.
20. Shri Datar also heavily relied upon The State ofTamilNadu
v. M.K. Kandaswami & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 745, in which this Court, D
while construing Section 7A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act,
referred with approval to a Kerala High Court judgment to hold that a
dealer selling goods may still be liable to pay tax in circumstances in
which no tax is payable under the Act. We must remember that this
Court was dealing with a provision which was stated to be a charging as
well as a remedial provision, the main object being to plug leakage and E
prevent evasion of tax. It is in this situation that the aforesaid provision
was given a purposive interpretation. In the present case, Section 3(2)
second proviso is neither a charging section nor a prevention of evasion
of tax section. It is a section which gives a certain concession as to set
off, provided its conditions arc fulfilled. This judgment, therefore, also F
does not avail the Appellant.
21. Shri Datar also relied upon A.V. Fernandez v. The State of
Kerala, 1957 SCR 837, for the proposition that the gross turnover of the
dealer should be looked at for finding out whether a dealer is liable to
pay VAT and clearly all sums payable, including sums by way of inter- G
State sales and exports, are taken into account for calculating gross
turnover which would then show that the dealer would be liable to pay
tax. This case again need not detain us any further because we are not
concerned with dealers liable to pay tax, but with importers of scheduled
goods who arc liable to pay tax in order that Section 3(2) second proviso
is attracted. We have already held that in the enacting part of Section H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A 3(2), the Appellant is certainly a dealer liable to pay tax under the VAT
Act, in that it is a registered dealer falling within Section 3(1) of the said
Act. Therefore, any argument based on gross turnover is wholly
unnecessary to include the Appellant under Section 3(2) of the Entry
Tax Act.
B 22. Shri Datar then referred to State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar
Chamber of Commerce & Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 136, for the proposition
that the Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill of the Entry Tax Act
showed that it was with a view to make the provision of the Bihar Finance
Act more workable. From this it can scarcely be held that this being the
object, the second proviso must be completely altered in order that it
c subserves such object. We have already held that a literal reading of the
second proviso, which gives a concession by way of set off, cannot
possibly be held to be altered qua every material condition, so that the
Appellant be entitled to claim a set off. Consequently, this judgment and
other judgments cited by the Appellant, such as Commissioner of
D Income Tax, Bangalore v. J.H. Gotla, Yadagiri, (1985) 4 SCC 343,
to buttress the plea ofpurposive interpretation cannot be held to apply in
the facts and circumstances of this case.
23. Shri Datar's next plea was that a literal reading of the second
proviso would lead to a situation where the same goods would suffer
£ different rates of tax and this would be discriminatory. We are afraid
that this plea also does not avail the Appellant for the simple reason that
there are two taxes which are levied in the present case, one is VAT and
the other is Entry Tax. In one case, VAT is set off against the Entry Tax
and in another, VAT is not so set off. Any anomaly arising from the
aforesaid position would not lead to a charge of clear and hostile
F discrimination.
24. When it comes to taxing statutes, the law laid down by this
Court is clear that Article 14 of the Constitution can be said to be breached
only when there is perversity or gross disparity resulting in clear and
hostile discrimination practiced by the legislature, without any rational
G justification for the same. (See The 1\vyford Tea Co. Ltd. & Anr. v.
The State of Kerala & Anr., (1970) I SCC 189 at paras 16 and 19;
Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
( 1980) I SCC 223 at 236 and P.M.Ashwathanarayana Setty & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1989) Supp. (I) SCC 696 at 724-726).
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 505
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
25. We must also not forget that no assessee can claim set off as A
a matter of right and the levy of Entry Tax cannot be assailed as
unconstitutional only because set off is not given. (See Godrej & Boyce
Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors.,
(1992) 3 SCC 624 at para 9 and State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro
Tech Pvt. Ltd, C.A. 15049-15069 of 2017 decided on 22'"' September, B
2017, at para 31).
26. However, Shri Datar referred to observations contained in
Ayurvcda Pharmacy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1989) 2 SCC
285, Aashirwad Films v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 624,
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Deepak Fertilizers and
Petrochemical Corporation Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 342 and Union of C
India & Ors. v. N.S.Rathnam and Sons, (2015) 10 SCC 681. Each
of these judgments concerned taxation rates that were ex-facie arbitrary
and/or discriminatory, in that the very same tax was levied at different
rates without any rational justification for the same and were, thus, struck
down as being arbitrary and/or discriminatory. None ofthese judgments D
would have any application to the facts of the present case, in which it is
clear that the plea of discrimination is qua a set off of one tax against a
separate and independent tax imposed. This fact circumstance would
be sufficientto distinguish the said judgments from the facts of the present
case.
E
27. Since we have found that the plea of discrimination must fail
on the aforesaid grounds, no question of reading down the provisions
would then arise.
28. However, when it comes to the levy ofinterest, the impugned
judgment dated 19m April, 2017, held that there can be no levy of interest·. F .. . __
as there is no substantive statutory provision for the same. The assessee
succeeded on this point and the State has not filed any appeal against
the same. Therefore, the finding qua interest, having become final, cannot
be interfered with by us.
29. However, Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing . G
for the Revenue, has argued before us that, as a matter of restitution,
interest must be granted in favour of the Revenue for the period for
which stay orders have been obtained in writ petitions filed in 2014 and
2015. This Court has held that, if a party ultimately succeeds, it must be
put back in the same position as if no such stay orders have been passed,
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A and for this purpose he referred to and relied upon State of Rajasthan
& Anr. v. J .K. Synthetics Limited & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 518 at
paras 18 and 23 and Nava Bhara; Ferro Alloys Limited v.
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited & Anr.,
(2011) I SCC 216 at paras 16 to 27.
B 30. It will be noticed, on a reading of para 23 of Bharat Ferro
Alloys (supra), that ultimately restitution is not a matter ofright, but is a
matter of discretlion, and that hardships on both sides must be looked at
in order to find a pragmatic solution by way of restitution. Given the fact
that the State co(1tinued with the grant of set off till the year 2014, and
reopened asses$ments beginning from 2008-09 based on an audit
c objection, wear¢ of the view that it would be highly inequitable at this
juncture to allow the State to charge interest, which would arise as a
result of stay orders being passed in the writ petitions. The principal
amount also is not something that the Appellant was able to pass on to
the ultimate consumer in the peculiar facts of this case. Had the Appellant
D known, from th¢ assessment year 2008-09, and had the Department
raised an objection in that very year, it would have arranged its affairs in
such a manner as to avail of set off under the Entry Tax Act, which it did
alter 2014. when the audit objections were raised for the first time. On
the facts of this case, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our
discretion to gra~t restitutional interest to the Revenue.
E
31. The mWer, however, does not end here. Shri Datar pointed
out that after the audit objections; a show cause notice dated 16" April,
2014 was issued by the authority, which was replied to by letters dated
16'h June, 2014 and 27'h June. 2014, in which the asscsscc repeatedly
asked for time to make a detailed objection on the merits of the case.
F Finally, by a letter dated 22'" August, 2014, the assessec was able to
muster certain certificates for the assessment years in question given by
BPCL and HPCL to show that a large amount of the sales made by
them in tum to their retail consumers and though retail outlets were
outside the local area of Patna. and, therefore, not exigible to Entry Tax
(j at all. We find that. without asking for further data and back up details,
the A5Sistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an assessment
order immediately thereatler, on 27ili August, 2014, and issued demand
notices on the very same date. We arc of the view that the Revenue
appeared to have been in a great hurry to issue the aforesaid demand
notices. and since we are dealing with OMCs who have complete details
H
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 507
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
of sales made for the years in question to their retail customers and A
outlets outside the area of Patna, we feel that Shri Datar is right in
asking that we give an opportunity to the Appellant to produce all relevant
documentary material. which would show that a large amount of the
demand for these years (ofRs.1,683.03 crores), would be liable to be
done away with as Entry Tax would not be Jcviable on these transactions B
at all as the consumption, use or sale of petroleum products has taken
place outside the local area of Patna. Indeed, all these sales must have
suffered Entry Tax in the local area outside Patna, where such retail
sales were made, provided, of course, that they were made within the
State of Bihar. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellant will
approach the Appellate Tribunal with all relevant materials in this behalf, C
and the Appellate Tribunal will render a finding as to how much of the
demand of Entry Tax for the assessment years in question would have
to be struck down, in that sales made by HPCL and BPCL to their retail
consumers and to others are made outside the local area of Patna. We
give the Appellants 12 weeks' time to approach the Appellate Tribunal D
with all details as aforesaid and request the Appellate Tribunal to render
findings as required by this judgment, as expeditiously as possible
thereafter. The stay orders granted in the writ petitions, which have
been continued till date, will continue till the decision of the Appellate
Tribunal.
32. With these observations, the Civil Appeal and the Special Leave E
Petitions are disposed of.
Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Entry Tax"Sign in to search