TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Commissioner is taken into revision. 2. At the outset, we may mention that learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel has made some additional submissions over and above the averments which are made in the writ petition. BRIEF FACTS: 3. The respondent is in the business of procuring the seeds and thereafter, they are processed in its factory and used for sowing purposes after they are germinated and the seeds from which they are procured are given to the farmers for sowing. 3.1. It appears that by the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was asked to pay the Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (for short, "the VAT Act") to the tune of Rs. 1,77,89,618/- which inter alia included the tax demand of Rs. 47,29,026/-, interest of Rs. 63,06,350/- and penalty of Rs. 67,54,242/-. After considering the payment of Rs. 5,64,217/- already made by the petitioner, the net demand of Rs. 1,72,25,401/- was raised. 3.2. The respondent challenged the assessment order before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 73 of the VAT Act and by the order dated 22.12.2011, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. 5.1. It is submitted that the original Assessment Order dated 29.12.2010 by applying the doctrine of merger has merged with the Appellate Order dated 22.12.2011 with the Revisional Authority and the authority has totally ignored the same and hence, the Tribunal order may not be entertained. Moreover, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the notification dated 29.03.2006 and accordingly, the appellate authority has decided the demand looking to the period prior from 31.03.2006 on which, the notification was issued by the State Government which did not exempt all type of seeds as mentioned in the notification dated 29.04.2006 and accordingly, the demand of tax was determined by the Appellate Authority which the petitioner has already complied with. 5.2. It is submitted that the Tribunal has precisely placed reliance on the decision of the determining authorities dated 04.03.2013 in the case of M/s. King and Queen Seeds Corporation and since the Joint Commissioner which is a higher authority to the Commissioner has passed the impugned order of revision, hence, the same is required to be followed and adopted which the Tribunal has taken cogniz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and penalty of Rs. 67,54,242/-. After debiting the amount of Rs. 5,64,217/- which the respondent had already paid, the net demand of Rs. 1,72,25,401/- was raised which was challenged by the respondent filing Revision Application No. 16 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions and the nature of use of seeds by the respondent allowed the revision application by holding thus: "9. We have considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case. We have also gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and the documents produced before this Tribunal. We have also considered the relevant notifications as well as determination orders placed before us for our consideration. There are three legal objections raised by the applicant against the impugned revisional order. We find sufficient force and merits legal submissions. It is an admitted position that at the time when the original audit assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on 29.12.2010, the earlier determination order in the case of M/s. Green India Farm Biotech, Junagadh dated 18.03.2009 was very much in existence. Despite this fact, the assessing officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se seeds on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's research personnel personally remained present in the farms and after due verification and undertaking proper research such as germination test, grow out test and generic test, certified seeds are prepared under the research and development program. This entire process is under taken in the farm and on such seeds, no purchase tax is leviable. The applicant has also relied on the determination order passed in the case of M/s. King and Queen Seeds Corporation, Gandhinagar on 04.03.2013, wherein it is specifically held that no purchase tax is leviable on such certified seeds. The applicant has also invited the attention of the Deputy Commissioner that even in the assessment order for the assessment Ld. period 2007-08 no purchase tax was leviable by the assessing officer himself. Despite this reply given by the applicant, the Ld. Deputy Commissioner has not considered any of these submissions and merely relied upon the earlier determination order in the case of M/s. Green India Farm Biotech, Junagadh and passed the impugned order. 11. Even after the aforesaid reply to the notice for revision the applicant has filed writt....