- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of A.P And Others v. Twin City Jewellers Assn. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST), jewellery was originally taxed at 4% under Item 21 of the First Schedule. By Government Order (G.O.) No. 252 dated 19-5-1995, the State reduced the rate on jewellery and certain precious stones to 2%. Subsequently, G.O. No. 303 dated 15-4-1997 rescinded Clause (b) of the earlier notification, leaving jewellery again taxable at 4% while fixing 3% on loose precious stones (other than pearls). G.O. 303 was published in the Official Gazette on 23-4-1997.
Because some dealers and assessing officers overlooked G.O. 303, returns continued to be filed and occasionally accepted at the earlier 2% rate. To remove ambiguity, the State issued an “Errata” on 4-5-1998 clarifying that jewellery (including those set with precious stones) was taxable at the reduced rate of 3%.
Certain jewellers filed writ petitions contending that the Errata could operate only prospectively, and that between 23-4-1997 and 3-5-1998 the 2% rate under G.O. 252 remained applicable. The Andhra Pradesh High Court accepted this contention by judgment dated 2-9-1998, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether G.O. 303 dated 15-4-1997, published on 23-4-1997, was valid and effective in restoring the 4% tax rate on jewellery as of the date of its publication.
- Whether the Errata dated 4-5-1998 retrospectively increased, or merely clarified/reduced, the applicable tax rate on jewellery.
- Whether ignorance of G.O. 303 by dealers or assessing officers could justify continuation of the concessional 2% rate after its publication.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (State Authorities)
- G.O. 303 was duly published in the Official Gazette on 23-4-1997; publication is constructive notice to all, making the 4% rate operative from that date.
- The Errata of 4-5-1998 did not increase the rate but reduced it from 4% to 3%; therefore the High Court erred in treating it as an enhancement.
- The term “errata” signifies correction, implying the prior existence and validity of G.O. 303; hence the High Court’s contrary assumption was flawed.
- Court cannot overlook clear statutory provisions merely because of confusion or laxity among dealers or officers.
Respondents (Jewellers)
- The Errata could operate only prospectively; therefore, for the period between 23-4-1997 and 3-5-1998, the 2% concessional rate under G.O. 252 should prevail.
- They claimed G.O. 303 “never saw the light of day”, arguing lack of awareness among trade bodies and assessing officers.
- On equitable grounds, the High Court should uphold assessments already accepted at the lower rate.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that publication of G.O. 303 in the Official Gazette on 23-4-1997 conferred immediate legal effect, restoring the tax rate on jewellery to 4%. Established law deems Gazette publication sufficient notice; ignorance of the notification by dealers or officers cannot negate its operation. The Court observed that any assessments made at 2% after publication were erroneous and could be reopened.
The Court emphasised that the Errata dated 4-5-1998 merely reduced the rate from 4% to 3%; it did not impose an increase. Consequently, the High Court’s premise—that the Errata enhanced the rate—was fundamentally incorrect. The very use of the term “errata” demonstrated that something already existed (G.O. 303) and was being corrected. Equitable considerations cannot override clear statutory mandates once the law is settled and published.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and allowed the appeals.
Immediate Effect: The jewellers are liable to pay sales tax on jewellery at 4% from 23-4-1997 until 4-5-1998, after which the rate stands reduced to 3% by virtue of the Errata. The decision reinstates the validity and enforceability of G.O. 303 and confirms that official Gazette publication is conclusive notice of subordinate legislation. No broader precedent beyond reaffirmation of established publication principles was articulated.
Order
1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 2-9-1998.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
Under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 1957, sales tax was leviable on jewellery at the rate of 4%, by virtue of Item 21 of the First Schedule. On 19-5-1995, GO No. 252 was issued. The relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“(b) that the tax leviable under the said Act shall in respect of sale of jewellery including those set with precious stones be at the reduced rate of 2%.
(c) that the tax leviable under the said Act shall in respect of sale of precious stones, loose, other than pearls, be at the reduced rate of 2%.”
Thus, by virtue of this GO, the rate of tax on jewellery was reduced to 2%.
3. On 15-4-1997, GO No. 303 was issued which referred to GO No. 252 and the relevant portion provided as follows:
“(a) Clause (b) of the said notification shall be rescinded.
(b) The tax leviable under the said Act shall be in respect of sale of precious stones, loose, other than pearls, be at the reduced rate of 3%.”
It is clear that by virtue of this GO, tax on precious stones, other than pearls was to be levied at the rate of 3%. But clause (b) of the earlier GO No. 252 stood rescinded. The effect of this was that on jewellery tax again became leviable at the rate of 4%. It appears that some jewellers and even some assessing officers were unaware of this GO. Therefore some returns were filed indicating tax levied at the rate of 2%. Some of these returns have been accepted by some of the assessing officers.
4. Thereafter on 4-5-1998, an errata was issued which reads as follows:
“Errata
In the notification appended to GOMs No. 303, Revenue (CT.II) Department, dated 15-4-1997 for clause (a) read as follows:
(a) The tax leviable under the said Act shall be in respect of sales of articles of jewellery made of bullion or specie or both, including precious stones shall be at the reduced rate of 3%.”
5. This errata clarifies that even on jewellery the tax would be leviable at the reduced rate of 3%.
6. After issuance of this errata, writ petitions were filed by some of the jewellers claiming that the errata could operate prospectively only. It was claimed that for the period between 23-4-1997 and 3-5-1998, the tax was to be levied at the rate of 2% as per GO No. 252. By the impugned judgment the High Court has accepted this contention. The High Court has proceeded on an entirely wrong assumption that the errata increased the rate of tax when in fact it had reduced the rate of tax.
7. The High Court has been persuaded to accept an argument that GO No. 303 dated 15-4-1997 never saw the light of the day. It was brought to the attention of the High Court that GO No. 303 had in fact been brought to the notice of the Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chambers of Commerce. But surprisingly the High Court held that even this notice would not by itself prompt the assessing authority to assess at the enhanced rate.
8. It could not be denied that GO No. 303 dated 15-4-1997 was published in the Official Gazette on 23-4-1997. It is settled law that once publication in the Official Gazette takes place, it is deemed to be known to all. Ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the GO was published, from the date it was published, it became effective. As it became effective from that date, the tax was leviable at the rate of 4%. If some assessing officers, due to their own ignorance or laxity accepted returns at the rate of 2% it did not permit the High Court to ignore the law and continue such laxity to prevail. It must be remembered that the assessing officer, who had assessed wrongly, could always reopen the assessment.
9. All that the errata, issued on 4-5-1998, does is reduce the rate of tax from 4% to 3%. The High Court has therefore also erred in concluding that the rate of tax has been increased. The whole judgment proceeds on the basis that the rate of tax has been increased when in fact it has been reduced.
10. We are unable to accept the submission that as GO No. 304 is an errata, it necessarily means that GO No. 303 had never come into existence. The word errata, in our view, implies that there was something in existence which is being corrected. The fact that this was an errata itself showed that there was something in existence which was being corrected. This aspect has also been overlooked by the High Court.
11. It was also submitted that since there was a lot of confusion and that number of parties including assessing officers were not clear as to what was the rate of tax, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the High Court which has been passed on equitable basis. We see no substance in this submission. If the law is clear then it must be given effect to. Merely because the parties were unaware of the law does not mean that courts can ignore the law and provide to the contrary.
12. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment stands set aside. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert