2017 (12) TMI 1072 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds Tribunal decision in tax revision case, rejects assessee's plea for remittance.

The court dismissed the revision filed by the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the State. The court found that the Annexure IV ... Principles of Natural Justice - main contention raised by the assessee was that Annexure IV order revising Annexure I order under Section 8 of the KVAT Act was passed without issuing notice to it and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter to the assessing officer - Held that: - A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that on a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the KVAT Act, Rule 10 of the KVAT Rules and Section 8 of the Finance Act, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in Section 8 while the legislature has made the tax payable on the basis of the turnover of the sale of the goods, for the purposes of Section 6, the phrase used is taxable turnover. It was therefore that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deductions, which are permissible under Rule 10 provided with reference to Section 6 are of no relevance, in a proceedings under Section 8 of the Finance Act. The assessee has allowed Annexure V to the extent it was against it to become final. In such a situation, this plea is not available to the assessee at this stage and therefore, we cannot accept this plea - revision dismissed. Issues:1. Revision filed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order allowing the State's appeal.2. Validity of Annexure IV order revising Annexure I without issuing notice to the assessee.3. Interpretation of provisions of Section 6 of the KVAT Act, Rule 10 of the KVAT Rules, and Section 8 of the Finance Act.4. Tribunal's decision on the relevance of deductions under Rule 10 in proceedings under Section 8 of the Finance Act.5. Assessee's plea for remitting the matter to the assessing officer due to lack of notice.Issue 1: Revision against Tribunal's order:The revision was filed by the assessee against the Tribunal's decision in favor of the State, where the Tribunal allowed the State's appeal challenging the Annexure V order passed by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority had remitted the matter to the assessing officer to enable the assessee to file a revised return for the assessment year 2010-2011.Issue 2: Validity of Annexure IV order:The main contention was that the Annexure IV order revising Annexure I under Section 8 of the KVAT Act was passed without issuing notice to the assessee. The first appellate authority had permitted the assessee to produce documents and obtained remarks from the assessing officer before deciding the appeal on merits, despite the lack of notice. The court found that the initial lack of notice did not invalidate the subsequent proceedings.Issue 3 & 4: Interpretation of relevant provisions:The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 6 of the KVAT Act, Rule 10 of the KVAT Rules, and Section 8 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal concluded that deductions under Rule 10, provided with reference to Section 6, were not relevant in proceedings under Section 8 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal's interpretation was deemed unassailable based on the language used in the legislative provisions.Issue 5: Assessee's plea for remitting the matter:The assessee pleaded for the matter to be remitted to the assessing officer due to the lack of notice during the issuance of the Annexure IV order. However, the court found that the assessee had not challenged the first appellate authority's decision to proceed on merits and remit the matter without issuing notice. As the assessee allowed the decision to become final without challenge, the plea for remittance at this stage was not accepted.In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision, upholding the Tribunal's decision and finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order.