2009 (3) TMI 921 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court favors dealer-assessee, remands VAT matter for delay explanation.

The court ruled in favor of the dealer-assessee, setting aside the VAT Tribunal's orders and remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority. The dealer ... Whether the VAT Tribunal was bound to take into consideration the declarations in form ST XXIIA produced before it, on or before the date of actual hearing of the case before it? Held that:- When the principles of law are applied to the facts of the instant appeals, it becomes evident that the Tribunal has refused to take into consideration the beneficial documents in form ST-XXII-A. Those documents have been ignored on the ground that the dealer-assessee had failed to produce those documents before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority despite being granted repeated opportunities. The explanation tendered by the dealer-assessee for the delay has also not been considered to record a finding whether such a delay constitutes sufficient cause or it is malicious. The documents in original have been produced before us and photocopies of those documents have been taken on record of this case as Mark 'A (Colly)'. Moreover, the case of the dealer-assessee right from the day of filing the returns on April 30, 2002 for the last quarter of 2001-02, has consistently been that no tax is imposable upon it as it has sold the goods on which tax had been paid at the stage of first stage of sale. While answering the question of law in favour of the dealer-assessee, we set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal, dated November 1, 2007, and all other orders including the assessment orders raising the additional demand. Issues:Appeal against VAT Tribunal's decision on non-submission of declaration in form ST XXIIA before hearing.Analysis:The dealer-assessee approached the court against VAT Tribunal's orders for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04, regarding the submission of form ST XXIIA. The Tribunal upheld additional demands by the Assessing Authority due to non-submission of the required declaration. The dealer-assessee contended that the forms could have been submitted at any stage of assessment proceedings, citing precedents. The court examined section 5(1A) of the 1948 Act and rule 29(xi) of the Rules, emphasizing the need for the dealer to furnish the required documents to claim tax benefits. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Central Sales Tax Rules, highlighting the importance of timely submission of necessary forms.The court noted that the law does not restrict the submission of beneficial documents only before the Assessing Authority, allowing presentation before appellate authorities. Precedent cases supported the view that the stage of document submission was not crucial, emphasizing the mandatory nature of producing such documents. The court considered the dealer-assessee's explanation for the delay in submitting form ST-XXII-A, which was supported by original documents produced during the hearing. The dealer consistently maintained that no tax was applicable as tax had been paid at the first stage of sale.Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the dealer-assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority. The dealer was granted the opportunity to submit form ST-XXII-A with a satisfactory explanation for the delay. If the documents were genuine, the dealer would benefit from tax provisions; otherwise, penalties could be imposed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.