Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 403 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReassessment - Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Rate of tax - inter-state sale - the appellant/writ petitioner produced ‘C’ Forms from its buyers, and it is on the said basis that the assessment was completed - Section 29 (4) of Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 - time limitation - Held that: - there is no power with the authorities to reassess, in the facts and circumstances of this case, for the reason that there is no order passed under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act - The fact that in the U.P. Act, there is no reference to Sections 25 and 26 in Section 29 may not, in our view, take away the power of the authorities to carry out the reassessment in the circumstances involved in this case. The provision relating to Section 29(1)(c), which has, in fact, been adverted to in the order of the Commissioner, which is the basis for permitting reassessment would, in our view, endow the authorities to deal with the case at hand. Undoubtedly, the appellant/writ petitioner has been assessed at the rate of 1 per cent. If the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to the concessional rate available to the assessees fulfilling the requirements under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessees would have been assessed at the rate of 4 per cent, which is the rate, which is higher than the rate at which the appellant/writ petitioner has been assessed. Therefore, we cannot say that there was no power even prior to the amendment to deal with a case like the present case. Therefore, we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the impugned order is bad for the reason that it was beyond his powers. This is not a case where the order passed under Section 29(4) of the Act is bad for the reason that it was passed without giving any opportunity or there being no reason. In the notice, the Commissioner would state that a request has been sent by the Deputy Commissioner to authorize him under Section 29(4) of the Act and the reasons are as have been stated. In fact, there is no reference in this notice, to the notice, which he has already issued acting under Section 29(1) of the Act, namely, Annexure No. 3, dated 20.11.2015. Thereafter, we may notice the actual order, which has been passed under Section 29(4) of the Act - the aspect relating to the ‘C’ Forms and, finally, the order to do a reassessment under Section 29 of the Act being found justified and appropriate. The Court, therefore, inter alia, took the view that it is not for the Tax Officer to hold an enquiry whether the goods specified in the certificate of registration can be used by him for any of the purposes mentioned in Form 'C', or that the goods purchased have, in fact, not been used - it is the Sales Tax Authority, who is competent to scrutinize the certificate to find out whether the certificate is genuine. The Assessing Officer will necessarily apply his mind to the various contentions raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in regard to the ‘C’ Forms and will also decide the matter - petition disposed off.
|