1995 (3) TMI 432 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing the order dated September 21, 1990, by the Superintendent of Taxes.
2. Mandamus to prevent assessment and realization of Assam finance sales tax for the period August 2, 1984, to August 1, 1989.
3. Refund of Assam finance sales tax paid on the purchase of raw materials for the period from August 2, 1984, to August 1, 1989.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing the Order Dated September 21, 1990:
The petitioner challenged the order dated September 21, 1990, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Panbazar, Unit-A, which rejected the petitioner's application for an authorization certificate under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 (the 1986 Act). The order stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any sales tax concessions under the 1986 Act.

The court found that the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes did not have the jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's eligibility for sales tax concessions under the 1986 Act. This authority was vested in the Udyog Sahayak set up at the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application for an authorization certificate on the ground that the Commissioner of Taxes had decided the petitioner was not entitled to the concession was contrary to section 4 of the 1986 Act and rule 4 of the 1988 Rules.

2. Mandamus to Prevent Assessment and Realization of Assam Finance Sales Tax:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the assessment and realization of Assam finance sales tax for the period from August 2, 1984, to August 1, 1989. The court noted that the petitioner had obtained an eligibility certificate from Udyog Vikash, certifying eligibility for sales tax exemption under the 1982 Scheme. However, the Superintendent of Taxes demanded sales tax payments for the period ending September 30, 1984, and March 31, 1985, because the petitioner could not produce a specific order or amendment of the Act allowing the exemption.

The court emphasized that the assessing authority must determine whether the conditions for exemption under the relevant notifications and the 1986 Act were satisfied. The Superintendent of Taxes' order directing the petitioner to pay sales tax without examining these conditions was contrary to law.

3. Refund of Assam Finance Sales Tax Paid on Purchase of Raw Materials:
The petitioner claimed a refund of Assam finance sales tax paid on the purchase of raw materials for the period from August 2, 1984, to August 1, 1989. The court referred to section 3 of the 1986 Act, which provides for the exemption of raw materials from sales tax. The proviso to section 3(1) stated that tax paid on goods sold or purchased during the period prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act would be reimbursed if the petitioner would have been entitled to a certificate of authorization under section 4(2) of the 1986 Act.

The court found that the Superintendent of Taxes had rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund of taxes paid on raw materials merely because the Commissioner of Taxes had decided that the petitioner was not entitled to any sales tax concession under the 1986 Act. This rejection was contrary to law.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated September 21, 1990, and directed the Superintendent of Taxes to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's application for an authorization certificate under the 1986 Act within two months. The Superintendent was also directed to decide the petitioner's claims for exemption from tax on sales of goods produced and for a refund of tax paid on raw materials in accordance with the law. Until fresh orders were passed, no coercive measures were to be taken against the petitioner. The parties were to bear their own costs.

Petition Allowed.

← Previous Next →