Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 444 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAssessment order - effect of order, prospective or retrospective? - whether the impugned order denying prospective effect to the assessment from the date of MSTT order dated 20/01/2015 is unjustified? HELD THAT:- If the impugned assessment order is perused, it is apparent that the assessing officer went by the effect given to the tribunal’s order by this court by terming it as applicable to all live proceedings. If the assessment in hand pertaining to financial year 2013-14 is considered live, then, the assessment order overlooks the fact that it is not the financial year, but the transactions covered and dealings up to 20th January, 2015, which is the relevant factor. It is nowhere indicated in the impugned assessment order that the transactions covered are post 20th January, 2015. The case of the petitioner that up to January, 2015 they have collected and paid tax at the rate of 15% of the turnover actually used by them after claiming goods return and therefore, the claim of goods return will have to be allowed and the payment of tax on the remaining value as per the return filed by the petitioners up to 20th January, 2015 should be held as valid, appears to be correct. It is an accurate understanding of this court’s order. This is not a case of any undue or uncalled for or illegal benefit being conferred on the dealer. This is a case of misreading and misinterpretation of the judgment of this court. Merely because the order of 11th September, 2006 is set aside by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015, the transactions covered and dealt with by that judgment, which gave rise to a tax liability, cannot now be reopened. This Court has clearly dealt with the issue of prospectivity to the order of the MSTT in the light of section 52(2) of the BST Act. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that ‘this was a fit case where the MSTT ought to have exercised its discretion and granted prospective effect to its judgment and order’, then, the contention of Shri Sonpal that ‘the order of the MSTT having merged with the order of the Commissioner and therefore the effect of prospectivity has to be from the year 2006’, can only be stated to be rejected. Petition allowed.
|