2017 (1) TMI 334 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court affirms tax exemption decision, emphasizing burden of proof on Revenue.

Assistant Commissioner, Works & Leasing Tax, Alwar Versus R.P. Goyal (Contractor) Bharatpur, Rajasthan Tax Board (Ajmer)

The High Court upheld the decision of the appellate authorities in a tax dispute case. The court found that the Assessing Officer had correctly applied ... Levy of differential tax - assessee sought exemption certificate @ 1%, whereas as per the Notification dt 29.3.2001 the exemption certificate was applicable @ 1.5% and since exemption certificate was issued in excess of .5%, a notice u/s 30 was issued - Held that: - AO was satisfied that all the receipts of ₹ 2,17,16,917/- were prior to 29.3.2001 and once this is a finding of fact recorded by both the authorities, as well as the impugned order, in my view the finding reached by the Tax Board is just and proper. Merely mentioning by the AO that exemption certificate was wrongly allowed, is no reason to reopen the case - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Validity of exemption certificate rate.2. Correctness of appellate authorities' findings.3. Allegations of incorrect exemption certificate issuance by AO.4. Requirement of material proof by assessee.5. Reversal of appellate authorities' decision.Analysis:1. Validity of exemption certificate rate:The case revolves around the validity of the exemption certificate rate applied by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the assessee's receipts. The AO found that the assessee sought exemption at 1% while the applicable rate was 1.5% as per a specific Notification. Subsequently, a notice was issued under section 30, and a differential tax of 0.5% was levied. The issue was whether the correct exemption rate was applied by the AO.2. Correctness of appellate authorities' findings:The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board both upheld the assessee's appeal, considering that the receipts were prior to the date when the Notification came into force, justifying the application of the 1% rate. The High Court observed that both appellate authorities had based their decisions on factual findings and records, indicating that the original assessment was conducted satisfactorily in the presence of the assessee.3. Allegations of incorrect exemption certificate issuance by AO:The Revenue contended that the exemption certificate was wrongly issued by the AO without proper verification and that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the receipts were prior to the relevant date. However, the High Court emphasized that the AO had already examined the records and was satisfied that the receipts were indeed prior to the date in question.4. Requirement of material proof by assessee:The High Court noted that the assessee had produced books of account before the AO during the original assessment, and the AO had correctly applied the 1% rate based on the available evidence. The Court highlighted that the burden of proof lay on the Revenue to establish any incorrectness in the exemption certificate issuance, which was not adequately discharged.5. Reversal of appellate authorities' decision:Ultimately, the High Court found no perversity in the decision of the appellate authorities, as they had based their findings on the material available on record and the correct facts presented during the assessment. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the justness and propriety of the Tax Board's decision, emphasizing that mere allegations of incorrect exemption certificate issuance were insufficient to reopen the case without substantial evidence to the contrary.