2017 (2) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce & Taxation Department, representing the respondents. 2. These Revision Petitions are filed under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the AVAT Act"). The challenge here is to re-assessment of tax under Section 18 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "AGST Act") and the primary contention is that the re-assessment was done beyond the period of limitation and therefore the same are not tenable in law. The transaction for the present proceedings relate to the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 3. The petitioner is represented by the learned counsel Ms. N. Hawelia and she submits that the assessment for the concerned years was completed on 17.03.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AGST Act, by computing the turnover at the concessional rate of 4% (instead of 13.2%), on account of the reduced rate of tax, notified on certain class of goods, under the Govt. Notification of 03.01.2003, which was given retrospective effect from 01.05.2001. The benefit of lesser tax rate was availed by the assessee, under the cover of this notification for the steel furnitures supplied by them. The original assessment at the concessional rate finalized on 17.03.2006 and 26.10.2006 respectively, was accepted by the assessee as well as the Revenue, as no challenge was made to the said assessment, before any of the higher authorities. 7. Long thereafter, this Court on 17.03.2011, in the Kamakhya Plastics (P) Ltd. (Supra) declared that the n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as the re-assessment is proposed beyond eight years of the assessments. 10. Notwithstanding the above contention, re-assessment of tax at the higher rate of 13.2% was made on 20.07.2011, under Section 18 of the AGST Act, read with Section 108 of the AVAT Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Tax held that finalization of assessment at the concessional rate of 4% can't be allowed as the concerned transactions are accessible to levy tax at the normal rate of 13.2%, under the AGST Act. Thus additional tax was found to be payable for the concerned transactions. To the quantified sum, interest component was also added in the re-assessment order of 20.07.2011. 11. Aggrieved by the above order, appeals were filed where again, the re-assessment ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., reported in AIR 2005 SC 1646, settled the legal position with the following words: "........................................ 111. The judicial opinion of binding authority flowing from several pronouncements of this Court has settled these principles; (i) in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely cut of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency; (ii) before taxing any person it must be shown that he fails within the ambit o....