2000 (1) TMI 962 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax Tribunal Denies Depreciation Exemption, Upholds Best Judgment Assessment

Bhai Haspal Singh and another Versus Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Barasat Charge and others

Bhai Haspal Singh and another Versus Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Barasat Charge and others - [2001] 123 STC 94 (WB) Issues Involved:1. Consideration of depreciation in plant and machinery for tax exemption calculation.2. Rejection of books of accounts.3. Legality of best judgment assessment.4. Correct rate of turnover tax (TOT).5. Liability for interest on unpaid sales tax.6. Penalty for delay in filing returns.7. Documentation for export sales.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Consideration of Depreciation in Plant and Machinery for Tax Exemption Calculation:The primary issue is whether depreciation in plant and machinery can be considered for calculating the investment of a small-scale industrial unit for tax exemption benefits under rule 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, or rule 3(116) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The firm argued that successive yearly depreciations reduced the total value of its plant and machinery to less than Rs. 5 lakhs, making it eligible for tax exemption. However, the Tribunal held that 'investment' in plant and machinery refers to the money actually put into the business, which remains unchanged despite depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized that depreciated value is not synonymous with investment, and the legislative intent was to support financially weak small-scale units, not larger units benefiting from depreciation. Therefore, the firm's investment exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs disqualified it from tax exemption under the relevant rules.2. Rejection of Books of Accounts:The assessing officer rejected the firm's books of accounts due to the absence of essential manufacturing accounts. The Tribunal upheld this rejection, noting that the firm failed to provide systematic classification and analysis of figures relating to sales, purchases, and manufacturing. The Tribunal stated that without relevant registers, it is impossible to verify the true state of business activity from vouchers and documents alone. The firm's plea that the assessing officer should have verified the vouchers was deemed contrary to basic accounting principles.3. Legality of Best Judgment Assessment:The firm contested the best judgment assessment as arbitrary. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions emphasizing that such assessments should not be capricious and must be based on logical reasoning. In this case, the assessing officer enhanced the gross turnover by less than 4% of the admitted figure, which the Tribunal did not consider abnormally high. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the best judgment assessment.4. Correct Rate of Turnover Tax (TOT):The firm disputed the turnover tax rate, claiming it should be 1% instead of 1.5% for the period from April 1, 1995, to April 30, 1995. The respondents conceded this point. Additionally, the 1994 Act, effective from May 1, 1995, did not provide for TOT. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the recalculation of TOT at the correct rate of 1% for the relevant period.5. Liability for Interest on Unpaid Sales Tax:The firm argued that it should not be liable for interest on unpaid sales tax, assuming it was entitled to tax exemption. The Tribunal held that since the firm was ineligible for tax exemption, it was liable to pay interest on unpaid sales tax according to the relevant statute. The Tribunal noted an error in the interest calculation due to the incorrect TOT rate and directed recalculation.6. Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns:The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for an 8-month delay in filing the return for the fourth quarter of 1995-96. The Tribunal considered this penalty excessive and reduced it to Rs. 5,000, deeming it sufficient to meet the ends of justice.7. Documentation for Export Sales:The firm claimed export sales, but the assessing officer noted the absence of supporting documents. The Tribunal observed that this point was not disputed before them, implying acceptance of the assessing officer's finding.Conclusion:The application was allowed in part. The impugned assessment and appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer for reassessment in light of the Tribunal's observations. The assessing officer was directed to recalculate the interest and TOT and fix the penalty at Rs. 5,000. No order as to costs was made.