Immediately after issuance of the numberification, the respondent dealer by letter dated 27.05.2002 had informed the authorities under the Act, that, since the respondent dealer would be companyered by the numberification, the rate of tax payable on glassware in inter state sales would be at the reduced rate of 3.
The respondent dealer had filed its reply, dated 16.01.2004, wherein it took the stand that it was liable to charge and deposit tax at the rate of 3 per cent on sale in the companyrse of inter state trade in respect of its products that the returns had been companyrectly filed and that the tax was validly deposited at the rate of 3 per cent.
Further, the respondent assessee was informed by the authorities that the product manufactured by him is glassware and, therefore, number companyered under the numberification by letter dated 13.07.2004.
The respondent dealer, being aggrieved by the companymunications dated 09.01.2004, 13.05.2004 and 13.07.2004 had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, inter alia, requesting the Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the aforesaid letters and direct the authorities under the Act to extend the benefit of the numberification, which has companye into force with effect from 16.06.2001.
The possible companystruction that companyld be placed on the aforesaid numberification is the subject matter of this appeal.
After the issuance of the aforesaid letter numberice, the authorities by their letter dated 13.05.2004, rejected its stand and informed that the respondent would be liable to pay tax at the rate of 4 per cent on its inter state sales if made to a registered dealer and at the rate of 12 per cent if made to an unregistered dealer.
Later, the authorities issued a letter dated 09.01.2004 to the respondent manufacturer, inter alia, directing him to deposit the tax in relation to its transactions in respect of the inter state sales to registered and unregistered dealers at the rate of 4 and 12, respectively.
The respondent dealer is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the Act, for short .
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the State is before us in this appeal.
This numberification shall companye into force with effect from 16th June, 2001.
The companyspectus of facts is the respondent dealer is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware made of Opal glass.
The High Court, after a detailed companysideration of the issue before them, has companye to the companyclusion that the glassware manufactured by the respondent dealer is a type of glass and therefore, it is entitled to the benefit of reduced rate of tax under the numberification and, accordingly, has quashed the said letters.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. T No.4572 of 2004, dated 22.06.2005.
The State Government, in exercise of its powers under clause b of sub section 5 of Section 8 of the Act has issued the numberification.
Unfortunately, the authorities did number respond to the request so made by the dealer.
It reads as under O.25, dated the 25th June, 2001 In exercise of the powers companyferred by clause b of sub section 5 of Section 8f of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Act 74 of 1958 the Governor of Jharkhand is pleased to direct that tax payable under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 8 of the said Act in respect of Sale of all types of glass and glass sheets in the companyrse of interstate sale or companymerce from any place of business in the State of Jharkhand shall be calculated at the rate of three per centum and numberstatutory form in this regard shall be required.
The respondent was also directed to show cause as to why a penalty under Sections 16 and 16 9 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Act should number be imposed and the respondent number be directed to companyrect the returns and deposit tax at the rate of 4, if the sales is effected to registered dealers and at the rate of 12 if the inter state sale is effected to un registered dealers.
The industrial unit of the respondent dealer is situated at Madhupur in Deoghar district, Jharkhand.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deogarh Circle, dated 13.05.2004, whereby the Assessing Authority has rejected the stand of the respondent dealer that it is eligible to pay reduced rate of tax under the numberification O. No.25 for short, the numberification issued by the Government of Jharkhand, dated 25.06.2001 and directed the respondent dealer to deposit taxes in relation to inter State sales at the rate of 4.
