MRF LTD., KOTTAYAM vs. ASST.COMNR.(ASSESSMENT)SALES TAX

C.A. No.-001610-001610 - 2006Supreme Court21 September 2006Bench: ASHOK BHAN MARKANDEY KATJU20 pages
For Petitioner: K. RAJEEVFor Respondent: P. V. DINESH
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

MRF Ltd. (the appellant) is a company engaged in manufacturing automotive tyres and related products. The Government of Kerala offered industrial incentives, including sales tax exemptions, to promote industrial growth. MRF entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Kerala on October 6, 1993, to expand its unit, involving an investment of Rs. 50 crores. This MOU stipulated that MRF would be entitled to tax exemptions for existing industries undertaking expansion. Subsequently, the Government issued SRO No. 1729/93, providing tax exemptions for seven years to existing medium and large-scale industrial units undertaking expansion or diversification, subject to conditions, including a cap on aggregate exemption not exceeding 100% of the additional fixed capital investment. An addendum to the MOU on April 10, 1996, confirmed MRF's entitlement to incentives under SRO No. 1729/93, as amended by SRO No. 271/96, for goods manufactured under diversified and expanded facilities.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the amendment notification SRO 38/98 had to be read so as not to take away or disturb MRF's pre-existing accrued right of exemption for a period of seven years. The Court agreed with the Kerala High Court's view in M.M. Nagalingam Nadar Sons Vs. State of Kerala and Dy. Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. MRF Ltd., which held that Section 10(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, does not confer the power to withdraw an exemption with retrospective effect. The Court found that the State of Kerala did not dispute this finding in previous proceedings. Therefore, the Court concluded that SRO 38/98 could not be construed retrospectively to affect MRF's vested right. The Court also rejected the revenue's submission that SRO 38/98 was merely classificatory, noting that the making of 'compound rubber' was accepted as 'manufacture' in the MOU, addendum, and subsequent certificates. The appeal was allowed, and a writ of mandamus was issued restraining the respondents from taking proceedings against MRF Ltd. contrary to its eligibility and exemption certificates.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amendment notification SRO 38/98, which sought to clarify the definition of 'manufacture' for the purpose of sales tax exemption, could be applied retrospectively to affect MRF's accrued right to exemption under SRO 1729/93, as amended by SRO 271/96. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that SRO 38/98 was retrospective and sought to take away or disturb its pre-existing accrued right of exemption for seven years. They argued that if SRO 38/98 were construed as retrospective, it would be ultra vires Section 10(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and therefore illegal. The assessee also pointed out that the making of 'compound rubber' was accepted as 'manufacture' in the MOU and addendum, and recognized in eligibility and exemption certificates. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the subsequent notification (SRO 38/98) was classificatory in nature and only removed doubt regarding 'compound rubber' in SRO 1729/93, implying it was not retrospective in its effect on accrued rights.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10,Section 10(1),Section 10(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1610 of 2006 PETITIONER: MRF Ltd., Kottayam RESPONDENT: Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)Sales Tax & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/09/2006 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T BHAN, J.

The writ petitioner in the High Court has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench by the impugned order has affirmed the decision of the Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the "MRF"). FACTS MRF is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its registered office is at 124, Greams Road, Chennai. One of its industrial units is located at Vadavathoor near Kottayam in the State of Kerala. MRF is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tyres, tubes, compound rubber, tread rubber, flaps, pre-cured tread rubber etc. at its industrial unit at Vadavathoor.

The Government of Kerala has from time to time declared and introduced several in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10

All 582 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →