2011 (5) TMI 884 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal decision on time-barred tax exemption application, emphasizes handwriting expert opinion.

Trinity Tapes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision on the time-barred application for tax exemption, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Court emphasized ... Whether the Tribunal was justified in not relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the signatures of the officer concerned on the alleged application of August 12, 2000 and in forming its own opinion on bare perusal of his signatures? Held that:- The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated August 5, 2010 only to the extent it rejects the application of the revisionist as barred by time on the ground that it was not submitted on August 12, 2000 as its receipt is not proved for the reason that it does not bear the signatures of the officer concerned, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal on the above limited question to decide the same in accordance with law and, if necessary, by calling for an additional report of an independent handwriting expert, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed accordingly Issues:1. Revision under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated August 5, 2010.2. Eligibility certificate for tax exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.3. Application for rectification of eligibility certificate under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.4. Rejection of application by the Divisional Level Committee and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.5. Reliance on handwriting expert's opinion for proving the authenticity of the application.6. Tribunal's rejection of the application as time-barred based on the prescribed period of three years.7. Dispute regarding the genuineness of signatures on the application submitted on August 12, 2000.8. Tribunal's failure to consider the handwriting expert's report and forming its own opinion on the signatures.9. Legal question of whether the Tribunal was justified in not relying on the handwriting expert's opinion.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a new industrial unit, was granted tax exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, with an eligibility certificate issued in 1992 and subsequently amended in 1994. Another unit was established, and a new eligibility certificate was granted in 2000. An application for rectification of the 2000 certificate was submitted on August 12, 2000, and a reminder was sent in 2004. The Divisional Level Committee rejected the application in 2009, stating it had no power to rectify and that the application was time-barred.2. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, presenting a handwriting expert's opinion to prove the authenticity of the 2000 application. The Tribunal, in its order dated August 5, 2010, found the application maintainable but rejected it as time-barred due to not being filed within the prescribed three-year period.3. The main legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the handwriting expert's opinion on the signatures of the officer who allegedly received the application on August 12, 2000. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons for discarding the expert's report and forming its own opinion solely based on the officer's denial of the signatures.4. The Tribunal's order did not consider the handwriting expert's report and dismissed it on the grounds that the officer denied the signatures. The Tribunal compared the signatures itself and concluded they did not match, thus ignoring the 2000 application and deeming the 2004 reminder as time-barred.5. The High Court held that while the handwriting expert's opinion is relevant, the court is not bound by it and must provide reasons for accepting or rejecting it. The Tribunal erred in not giving weight to the expert's report and forming its own opinion on the signatures without proper justification.6. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Tribunal's decision on the time-barred application and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a proper decision, possibly by obtaining an additional report from an independent handwriting expert.