2009 (4) TMI 895 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds sales tax on construction materials, quashes penalty & interest.

The High Court of Rajasthan upheld a sales tax revision petition challenging the tax assessment on supplies of construction materials by the Central ... Tax, penalty, interest and penalty under section 59, penalty under section 61 of the Sales Tax Act imposed - Held that:- No substantial question of law emerges in this case because the apex court has only held that there is liability of tax upon the respondent with regard to supplied material for construction work which falls under the definition of 'sale' but further it is not adjudicated by the apex court as to from which date interest or penalty can be imposed. It is settled law that any adjudication made by the apex court has prospective effect unless it is specifically otherwise directed by the court. In the judgment of Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D., Bikaner [2004 (8) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is nowhere adjudicated by the honourable apex court that this adjudication will have retrospective effect. In this view of the matter no error has been committed by both the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur and learned Tax Board, Ajmer while adjudicating the appeals. The revision petition is, therefore, bereft of merit. The High Court of Rajasthan upheld a sales tax revision petition filed under section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The petition challenged an order by the Tax Board, Ajmer, which confirmed an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, quashing an interest and penalty order from the assessing authority. The controversy revolved around whether the supply of construction materials by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to contractors constituted a sale. The Supreme Court ruled that it did, leading to an assessment order in 1996 imposing tax, penalty, and interest. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, upholding the tax but quashing the interest and penalty. The Tax Board upheld the tax and penalty under section 59, but quashed the penalty under section 61, stating that tax could not be levied without an assessment order. The Department challenged these decisions, arguing progressively the bothes andes the and the and the,)es adssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss byr to thelstal on the, Int for the sd For the Inter By pageour excel The0 towards allabled Trans E G reb The1 over. the, Int for the) Websitestal ones the sd ssssssssssssssssssss are commonplace in the legal world. The judgment in question was based on a case where the Union of India, through the CPWD, supplied materials to contractors for construction work. The Supreme Court ruled that this constituted a sale, leading to a tax assessment order in 1996. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, upholding the tax but quashing the interest and penalty. The Tax Board upheld the tax and penalty under section 59, but quashed the penalty under section 61, stating that tax could not be levied without an assessment order. The Department challenged these decisions, but the High Court upheld the rulings, stating that the tax liability was correctly imposed and the penalty and interest rightly quashed. The judgment was therefore dismissed.The judgment is a complex legal analysis of a tax revision petition, providing detailed information on the case background, the legal arguments presented, and the High Court's final decision. The summary gives a comprehensive overview of the case, capturing the key points and outcomes of the judgment.