Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle vs National Engineering Industries Limited and Others

J.K. Ranka J.

The issue in all the instant petitions are about surcharge on turnover tax which has been levied by the assessing officer. Both the appellate authorities after analyzing the material available on record and specially the Tax Board in the light of the circular/clarification issued on August 31, 2001 by the Additional Commissioner (Tax) held that in the light of the circular/clarification, surcharge on turnover tax is not leviable. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that identical issue came up before this court in the case of CTO v. Instrumentation Ltd., Kota reported in [2012] 31 Tax Update 286 and after considering the circular dated August 31, 2001 came to the conclusion that the clarification/circular has been correctly interpreted by the Tax Board.

Counsel for the Revenue tried to distinguish the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Instrumentation Ltd., Kota [2012] 31 Tax Update 286 and contended that the clarification/circular dated August 31, 2001 was not a general circular but related to only Indian Oil Corporation Limited who had sought clarification as to whether turnover tax and surcharge is leviable or not and contended that this clarification/circular cannot be held to be having effect on all the assessees, and thus, contended that it is only a clarification and not even a notification/circular and thus inapplicable.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and in my view, the clarification/circular dated August 31, 2001 bearing No. P. 16(4) Tax/Commissioner/2000/1076 may have been addressed to Indian Oil Corporation Limited but in my view, it is a general circular and has been notified as a notification and for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:

This court in the case of Instrumentation Ltd. [2012] 31 Tax Update 286 had considered the above notification and after placing reliance on the judgments of the honourable apex court rendered in the case of MRF Ltd., Kottayam Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Others, , Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s. Indra Industries, and State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. and Another, and Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries, wherein the honourable apex court held as under (page 125 in 126 STC):

"We need to make it clear that, regardless of the interpretation that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue."

Accordingly, in my view, the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Instrumentation Ltd. [2012] 31 Tax Update 286, is squarely applicable to the facts and this court is not inclined to take a different view in these petitions.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Tax Board. Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.