Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1737 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of appeal - principles of res-judicata - the dealer once again gone into the question of tax liability in respect of disputed turnover when the same was attained finality by order of first appellate authority and no appeal was filed against it - compounding rate of tax - the respondent/dealer has not exercised his option at the time of commencement of assessment year. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in entertaining the appeal of the dealer once again gone into the question of tax liability in respect of disputed turnover when the same was attained finality by order of first appellate authority and no appeal was filed against it? - HELD THAT:- Originally Assessment Order dated 29.5.2009 was put in challenge before the Commercial Tax Officer (Appeal). He has ordered remanding the matter relating to the assessment on the turnover of ₹ 8,26,029/-, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. In other aspects the appeal was modified and dismissed - After remand, the Assessment Order was again passed on 10.10.2002, which was again challenged by way of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner CT-VI, Chennai. By his order dated 18.11.2003 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assesssee has not challenged the order of remand and against which the Appeal was filed before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Appellate Tribunal considered the judgment of the Kerala High Court in M SYED ALAVI AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA [1981 (5) TMI 113 - KERALA HIGH COURT], held that the docrtine of res judicata normally would not be attracted to statutory proceedings to entertain the appeal and allowed the appeal and held that merely because the option was not exercised by the assessee within a stipulated time same cannot be the ground for denial for concession in the rate of tax conferred in the statue on the assessee. Thus, entertaining the appeal on the ground that principles of res judicata normally would not be attracted in the tax matters - the first Substantial Question of Law is answered against the Revenue. Compounding rate of tax - Whether the Tribunal is right in law in accepting the claim of compounding rate of tax under Section 7(c) of the Act when the respondent/dealer has not exercised his option at the time of commencement of assessment year? - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that when the assessee, works contractor was engaged at the fag end of the financial year, Revenue cannot contend that the tax to be paid as stipulated in the proviso to Section 7-C of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the asssessee has engaged in work contracts much prior to the commencement of the financial year. That being the case, it cannot be contended by the Revenue that the option should have been exercised within the time stipulated in the proviso to Section 7-C. Once Return is filed by the assessee and accepted by the Revenue, it goes without saying that the assessee in fact, opted for availing the benefit under Section 7-C of the Act. Admittedly, there is no particular format was prescribed. Therefore, once the assessee has filed the Return, paid the relevant tax and the same has been accepted by the assessee, it is deemed that option has been exercised properly by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal extending the benefit to the assessee does not require any interference. The order of the Tribunal extending the benefit to the assessee does not require any interference - the Second Substantial Question of law is also answered against the Revenue. Revision dismissed.
|