9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 631 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to the rejection of application for reopening assessment as barred by limitation. Analysis: The petitioner, a private limited company, applied for an eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The Commercial Tax Officer recommended rejection of the application based on a report that the petitioner's product was a banned item. The petitioner then requested to treat the application as one under section 10F of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The application for deferment of tax under section 10F was granted, but the eligibility certificate application was rejected without giving an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner filed revisions, and after a series of legal proceedings, the Additional Commissioner directed to consider the application on merits and granted the eligibility certificate for tax holiday. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for reopening of assessment for three years, but the application was rejected as barred by limitation. The petitioner challenged this finding before the Taxation Tribunal, which upheld the rejection citing a lapse of six years between the first revision application and the grant of eligibility certificate. The petitioner argued that the claim was not time-barred as the right became crystallized only after the grant of the eligibility certificate in 2002. The Tribunal's order was set aside, directing the authorities to allow the reopening of assessment for three years from January 5, 1993, based on the order dated February 12, 2002. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's right to claim the eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) crystallized in 2002, and the Tribunal erred in finding the claim time-barred. The Tribunal's decision was deemed erroneous in law, leading to the setting aside of the order and allowing the petitioner's application for reopening the assessment. The writ application was allowed, quashing the Tribunal's order, with no order as to costs.
|
