2023 (6) TMI 1191 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds denial of sales returns benefit due to delay, emphasizing strict statutory interpretation. Burden of proof on petitioner.

M/s WELLFIT INTERNATIONAL AUTOWORLD PVT. LTD Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) -II

The court upheld the assessing authority's denial of the petitioner's claim for sales returns benefit due to delay in submission, emphasizing strict ... Denial of claim for concessional rate of tax and claim for sales returns - no C Forms to support the claim for concessional rate of tax - claim of the petitioner rejected on the ground that the claim for sales return had not been made within the time contemplated under the statute - differential demand of tax on the petitioner - HELD THAT:- While considering claims for exemption from tax, the burden of proof is strictly on the petitioner to demonstrate that he fulfils the conditions for claiming the exemption, and the statutory provisions in that regard must be strictly construed in favour of the revenue and against the assessee - In the instant case, it is found that the statutory provision mandates that any claim for sales return be made within a period of six months from the date of the sale transaction, and admittedly, in the instant case, the claim for sales returns was made beyond that period. There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, which conforms to the well-settled principle in taxation that a statutory provision providing for an exemption has to be strictly construed in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The questions of law raised in this revision petition have to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee - Petition dismissed. Issues:The issues involved in this case are the denial of the benefit of sales returns to the petitioner on the ground of delay and the strict interpretation of statutory provisions regarding exemption from tax.Denial of Sales Returns Benefit:The petitioner, a dealer in seat covers, submitted a return for the financial year 2012-2013 showing a total taxable turnover and availed a concessional rate of tax. The Department issued a notice to produce documents supporting the claim for concessional rate of tax on the remaining turnover. The petitioner produced debit notes for interstate purchase and sales return. The assessing authority denied the claim for concessional rate of tax and sales returns, resulting in a differential tax demand on the petitioner.Appeals Process:The petitioner appealed the assessing authority's decision. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal related to sales returns, citing that the claim was not made within the stipulated time under the statute. Limited relief was granted for a turnover for which 'C' Form declarations were submitted. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, emphasizing that the claim for sales return was beyond the statutory time limit.Legal Contention and Decision:In the revision, the petitioner contended that the denial of sales returns was based on a technical ground of delay, arguing that such technical reasons should not deny substantial benefits. The court emphasized that the burden of proof for claiming exemption from tax lies with the petitioner and statutory provisions must be strictly construed in favor of the revenue. As the claim for sales returns was made beyond the statutory period of six months, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that statutory exemptions must be strictly interpreted in favor of revenue. Consequently, the questions of law raised were decided in favor of the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.