2020 (2) TMI 1393 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption from Sales Tax - export of electrolytic tinplates to Nepal - only ground for denying the said exemption was that the Nepal invoice produced by the petitioner was not bearing the signatures of the two Border Custom Officials of India and Nepal so as to certify that in fact the export was made - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner Company was not entitled to the exemption of the tax on the export sale of electrolytic tinplates done by them to Nepal in the year 2004-05. The required document was deposited with the Central Excise Department and they have also stated in their counter affidavit that the aforesaid export was made by the petitioner Company which fact is also now accepted by the State Government in their supplementary counter affidavit stating that the matter be remitted to the Assessing Authorities for taking a decision afresh - there are no reason for sending the matter back to the Assessing Authority once again in view of the specific stand of the CGST and Central Excise that the export was made by the petitioner Company during the relevant period. If the export was made by the petitioner Company it is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption in the tax. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption claim on export sales disallowed, Certification missing in Nepal invoice, Reconsideration of export sales documentation, Refund of amount recovered.

Exemption Claim Disallowed:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of electrolytic tinplates, exported goods to Nepal in 2004-05 worth a significant amount. Despite claiming exemption from sales tax on exports, the claim was disallowed during regular assessment, and subsequent appeals were rejected. The issue revolved around the missing certifications by Border Customs Officials of India and Nepal on the Nepal invoices submitted by the petitioner.

Reconsideration of Export Sales Documentation:
The matter was taken to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, which partially allowed the revision petition, remanding the case for reconsideration by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal). The Tribunal acknowledged the export but emphasized the absence of certifications in the Nepal invoices. Despite efforts to produce the required documentation, subsequent orders upheld the denial of exemption due to missing certifications.

Refund of Amount Recovered:
Upon further submissions and counter affidavits, it was revealed that the required export documentation was indeed submitted to the Central Excise Department, confirming the export by the petitioner. The State Tax Authority, in a supplementary counter affidavit, expressed readiness to revisit the matter. Consequently, the High Court set aside previous assessment orders and directed the refund of any recovered amount, along with statutory interest, to the petitioner within two months.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ application, overturning previous decisions due to the confirmed export by the petitioner. With the acknowledgment that the petitioner was entitled to tax exemption on the exported goods, the court ordered the refund of any recovered amount. The case highlighted the importance of proper documentation and certifications in export transactions to substantiate claims for tax exemptions.