| The Supreme Court delivered this ruling while dismissing seven appeals of the Kerala government against the high court judgment in the case of plantation tax. |
| In this case, the schedule to the Plantation Tax Act was changed with effect from July 1. As a result, the plantations were assessed for the year starting from April 1 to June 30, according to the old rates and for the next nine months according to the revised rates. |
| The plantations protested against this double rates in the same year, but the collector dismissed their complaints. The high court, however, ruled that the new rates could be applicable only from the next assessment year as the liability to pay tax got crystallised on April 1 each year. |
| The government moved the Supreme Court asserting that the demand was for the differential tax and there was no question of two assessments. The apex court rejected this argument and upheld the high court view. |
| Ambay Cement case order rejected |
| The Supreme Court last week allowed the appeal of the Jharkhand government against the high court ruling favouring Ambay Cements in its claim for exemption from sales tax under the industrial policy granting the benefit for new small-scale units. |
| When the company applied for exemption, the joint commissioner rejected it as the company had not obtained permission from the department of industries. The company moved the high court. |
| The court directed the authorities to treat the temporary registration certificate issued by the district industry centre as permission of the state government. But the Supreme Court held that the high court was wrong. |
| It declared that when the rules said a particular act should be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner and not in any other way. |
| Reconsider order, Madras HC asked |
| The Supreme Court last week directed the Madras High Court to examine afresh the latter's judgment in the Bannari Amman Sugar Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer case regarding withdrawal of benefits given to the company in the matter of purchase tax. |
| The government had discontinued the purchase tax exemption in case of mills, which exceeded the ceiling of Rs 300 lakh during the period of five years and the order was made retrospective. Two mills challenged this before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. |
| It held that on the application of the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the withdrawal of the benefit was not legal. The state moved the high court, which held that the withdrawal of benefits was in order. The mills appealed to the Supreme Court. |
| It stated that the application of the two principles should be reconsidered by the high court. It also noted that the high court had relied on files produced by the state government to justify the change in policy. The mills did not get opportunity to present its side of the picture. |
| Kores India's appeal dismissed |
| The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Kores India Ltd against the assessment of excise duty on typewriter ribbons. |
| The Customs, Excise and (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, southern Bench in Chennai, had upheld the demand for duty. On the other hand, the New Delhi Bench of the tribunal held that duty was not payable, on the same set of facts. |
| The company moved the Supreme Court against the order against it, arguing that while cutting the jumbo rolls of ribbons (210 metres) into small rolls (5 metres) for consumers, there was only processing and no manufacture. |
| The jumbo rolls had already suffered excise duty once. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and said the jumbo rolls and the small ones were different products and not interchangeable. In fact, the company had a separate unit to manufacture the spool version of the ribbons, the court said. |
Explore Business Standard