1986 (7) TMI 381 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for multiple assessment years.
2. Revision petitions filed against the assessment and penalty orders.
3. Allegation of unfair assessment by the petitioner.
4. Contention regarding the petitioner's status as a dealer.
5. Failure to produce relevant documents before the assessing authorities.
6. Ignoring relevant notifications in imposing tax.
7. Delay in filing the petition and lack of grounds for relief.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a contractor and supplier of materials to government departments, was assessed for sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act for the years 1967-1972. Revision petitions were filed against the assessment and penalty orders. The Deputy Commissioner affirmed the tax amount but reduced the penalty for one year and dismissed the revision petitions for subsequent years due to the petitioner's non-appearance despite adjournments. The petitioner then filed revision petitions before the Commissioner, which were successively rejected. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, leading to the filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The main contention raised by the petitioner was the alleged unfairness of the assessing authorities in passing the assessment orders. The petitioner argued that they were not a dealer but a works contractor, thus not liable to pay tax under the Act. However, the return submitted by the respondents contended that the petitioner qualified as a dealer as they supplied materials for construction purposes. The petitioner failed to produce crucial certificates supporting their claim of being a labor contractor before the authorities, and the court noted that these documents were not presented during the revision process.

Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the assessing authorities had ignored relevant notifications while imposing tax. Still, it was revealed that no such allegations were made in the petition. The court emphasized that raising new grounds during the hearing without prior mention in the petition or before the authorities was not permissible. The court highlighted the delay in filing the petition, lack of valid grounds for relief, and the petitioner's failure to appear before the Commissioner despite adjournments, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, vacated interim orders, and emphasized that no relief could be granted due to the lack of substantiated claims and procedural shortcomings in the petitioner's case.