2016 (11) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petitions Dismissed for Non-compliance with Directions. Section 71 Limitation Upheld.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. (Now Hindustan Uniliver Ltd.) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commerial Tax, Indore & Others

The High Court dismissed all writ petitions as the petitioner failed to comply with directions to submit legible and certified duplicate documents. It ... Deduction in respect of the branch transfers in absence of declarations - whether branch transfers to be treated as inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax? - rectification of mistake - revisional authority ought to have exercised its powers under section 71 of the MPCT Act to rectify the mistake within the statutory period and if within one year the order has not been rectified, then petitioner is entitled to get it rectified in its term of the said application - Held that: - the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that sub-section (2) of section (1) has specifically provided that rectification is limited for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The application for rectification which the petitioner has filed as Annexure P/16 is nothing but in the nature of appeal or revision in which the petitioner wants to recall the order dated 27.08.2013 which is beyond the scope of section 71 of the MPCT Act, 1994, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner that by virtue of sub-section (2) if the application has not been decided within the specified time, the petitioner shall be entitled to have the order rectified in accordance with his application - The scope of section 71 cannot be enlarged to the extent of reviving or recalling the entire order on merit. The scope is very limited only to correct the mistakes or any error arising therein for accidental slip or omission - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the assessment orders dated 24.02.1995, 31.12.1998, and 29.06.2002.2. Compliance with the appellate authority's directions regarding the 'B' file and submission of duplicate documents.3. Validity of the revisional authority's order dated 27.08.2013.4. Applicability of Section 71 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act for rectification of the revisional order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Assessment Orders:The petitioner challenged the assessment orders dated 24.02.1995, 31.12.1998, and 29.06.2002, which refused to grant deductions for branch transfers due to the absence of declarations, treating the transactions as inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. The original assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, which resulted in an additional demand of Rs. 75,91,261/-. The petitioner contended that the requisite declarations were part of the 'B' file, which was not considered during the assessment.2. Compliance with Appellate Authority's Directions:The appellate authority remanded the matter multiple times, directing the assessing authority to trace the 'B' file or allow the petitioner to submit duplicate copies of the declarations. Despite these directions, the assessing authority maintained its original stance, leading to further appeals and revisions. The High Court noted that the assessing authority failed to comply with the appellate authority's directions to trace the 'B' file or explicitly instruct the petitioner to submit duplicates.3. Validity of Revisional Authority's Order:The revisional authority dismissed the revisions on 27.08.2013, citing that the photocopies of commercial Bills of Lading submitted by the petitioner were not legible and lacked the Customs Department's clearance certificate. The petitioner argued that the revisional authority did not give due consideration to the documents submitted as per the High Court's earlier order dated 14.05.2013. The High Court found that the revisional authority had scrutinized the documents and rejected them based on their condition and lack of necessary certifications.4. Applicability of Section 71 of the MPCT Act:The petitioner filed an application under Section 71(2) of the MPCT Act for rectification of the revisional order dated 27.08.2013, arguing that the order should be rectified if not done within the specified period. The High Court clarified that Section 71's scope is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The petitioner's application was deemed to be in the nature of an appeal or revision, which is beyond the scope of Section 71. Therefore, the High Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the revisional order should be rectified as per their application.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioner failed to comply with the directions to submit legible and certified duplicate documents. The Court upheld the revisional authority's findings and clarified that Section 71 of the MPCT Act could not be used to recall or revise the entire order on merits. The petitions were found to be devoid of merit and were consequently dismissed.