Assistant Commissioner Vs. Jyoti Cotton Industries - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 3. both the authorities have held that since the condition of the notfn was satisfied by the respondent-assessee, the respondent assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax @2% under the said notfn. l026] prescribing 3% rate of tax generally covering all the commodities was also available, therefore, learned aa was right in imposing 3% tax under the said notfn and appellate authorities erred in applying notfn dated 7.6.1996 (sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996). 5. having heard learned counsel, this court finds no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue because it is well settled rule of interpretation that special law will override and prevail over the general law and once the particular notification dated 7.6.1996(sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996) covers the commodity in question namely edible oil, therefore, the appellate authorities were right in upholding the rate of tax of 2% under the said notification and not 3% rate of tax under the general notification covering all commodities.vineet kothari, j.1. heard learned counsel.2. both the revision petitions are directed against the concurrent findings of two appellate authorities below in favour of assessee that the goods namely mustard oil sold by the assessee was covered by the notfn s.0.282 dated 7.6.1996 (sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996) [s. no. 1051 of part ii of the book by j.k. jain & prasoon jain] prescribing rate of tax @ 2% on the inter-state sales made by the assessee subject to fulfillment of condition of furnishing of the declaration in form 'd' under the said notfn.3. both the authorities have held that since the condition of the notfn was satisfied by the respondent-assessee, the respondent assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax @ 2% under the said notfn.4. learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that since the other notfn, serial no. 1026, s.o.124 dated 28.9.1995[s. no. l026] prescribing 3% rate of tax generally covering all the commodities was also available, therefore, learned aa was right in imposing 3% tax under the said notfn and appellate authorities erred in applying notfn dated 7.6.1996 (sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996).5. having heard learned counsel, this court finds no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue because it is well settled rule of interpretation that special law will override and prevail over the general law and once the particular notification dated 7.6.1996(sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996) covers the commodity in question namely edible oil, therefore, the appellate authorities were right in upholding the rate of tax of 2% under the said notification and not 3% rate of tax under the general notification covering all commodities. as a matter of fact, no question of law arise in these revision petitions for consideration under section 86 of the rst act, 1994.6. the revision petitions are found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. copy of this order be sent to the respondent-assessee.