Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1184 (BOM)

MARSHALLS ENTERPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2011-09-22

A.A.SAYED, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD

body2011
JUDGMENT The challenge in these proceedings is to a trade circular dated February 3, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. By the circular in question the Commissioner has clarified that two earlier circulars being circulars 35-T of 2005 and circular No. 1-T of 2006 are withdrawn. The circular thereupon informs the trade that certain types of paper would be covered within the scope of entry 70 of Schedule C to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The powers of the Commissioner to issue directions and instructions is elucidated in section 10(10) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 which provides as follows: "10(10) The Commissioner may, from time to time, issue such instructions and directions as he may deem fit to the authorities and officers subordinate to him for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and such authorities and officers shall observe and follow such instructions and directions of the Commissioner : Provided that, no such instructions or directions shall be issued, - (i) so as to require any authority to pass a particular order or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (ii) so as to interfere with the discretion of the appellate authorities in any particular case : Provided further that, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, he may cause such instructions and directions to be published and circulated for general information." Ex facie, on a reading of the provision it is evident that the Commissioner is empowered to issue instructions and directions to his subordinate officers for carrying out the purposes of the Act. However, an instruction or direction cannot require any authority to pass a particular order or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. Similarly, the Commissioner cannot while issuing a direction or instruction interfere with the discretion of the appellate authority in any particular case. The petitioners contend that wall paper falls within the description of the tariff entry paper (entry 70 of Schedule C to the MVAT Act, 2002). Entry 70 of Schedule C is entitled "paper, newsprint, paper board, waster paper, computer paper, stationary of all types, carbon paper and ammonia paper". The petitioners contend that wall paper falls within the description of the tariff entry paper (entry 70 of Schedule C to the MVAT Act, 2002). Entry 70 of Schedule C is entitled "paper, newsprint, paper board, waster paper, computer paper, stationary of all types, carbon paper and ammonia paper". Whether wall paper would amount to paper within the meaning of entry 70 of Schedule C cannot obviously stand concluded by a trade circular since this is a matter which would have to be determined either in assessment proceedings or if an application for a determination to that effect is made to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. In either of those eventualities, it needs to be clarified that the impugned circular shall not be treated as binding, conclusive or foreclosing the quasi-judicial functions of the competent authority. However, we also clarify that we have had no occasion to express any opinion in the present case on the claim of the petitioner that wallpaper falls within the scope of entry 70 of Schedule C and the issue shall be determined in appropriate proceedings under the Act. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid clarification.