2003 (4) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal decision upheld in rebate claim case for turpentine oil sale, compliance with declaration forms key

Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Luckonw Versus Indian Turpentine & Resin Co.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Luckonw Versus Indian Turpentine & Resin Co. - [2007] 7 VST 521 (All) Issues:Claim of rebate under section 5 read with rule 27-D for sale of turpentine oil, Disallowance of rebate by assessing authority, Appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, Eligibility of rebate under rule 27-D, Interpretation of rule 27-D conditions, Compliance with declaration forms VII-G and VII-H, Obligations of selling dealer, Precedents on dealer liabilities, Tribunal's decision upheld.Analysis:The case involved a revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax challenging the Tribunal's order related to the claim of rebate under rule 27-D for the sale of turpentine oil. The dealer, a Government Company, sold oil to M/s. Campher and Allied Products and claimed rebate under section 5 read with rule 27-D. The assessing authority disallowed the rebate, citing stock transfer of finished goods by the purchasing dealer. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal allowed the rebate, considering compliance with declaration forms VII-G and VII-H as sufficient for eligibility.The key contention was whether the rebate was eligible when the finished goods were stock transferred by the purchasing dealer. The Commissioner argued that the rebate was not applicable in such cases, while the dealer contended that once the required declaration forms were filed, the rebate was valid regardless of the purchasing dealer's actions. The dealer relied on various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd., emphasizing the selling dealer's limited obligations and liability.Rule 27-D outlined conditions for rebate eligibility on oil sold to registered industries, focusing on consumption within U.P. or for export, with specific requirements for declaration forms VII-G and VII-H. The rule did not mandate verification of the actual sale location of finished goods. Precedents like Bharat Iron Stores and Gaurav Traders highlighted that selling dealers were not burdened with extensive verifications beyond genuine declaration forms.The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the dealer had fulfilled rule 27-D requirements by submitting genuine declaration forms, absolving them of responsibility for the purchasing dealer's subsequent actions. The judgment reinforced the principle that selling dealers acted in good faith and could not be held liable for the purchasing dealer's misconduct. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order and settling the dispute in favor of the dealer.