TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by the petitioner, M/s. Bharat Press, a partnership firm, through its managing partner, namely, Sri Pabitra Jiban Baruah, for quashing/setting aside the impugned orders dated April 2, 2009 and April 27, 2009 (annexures F and H to the writ petition, respectively) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Election Department and letter dated September 23, 2009 (annexure M to the writ petition) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Election Department denying the exemption to the petitioner from paying the value added tax (in short, the VAT ) on printing of compendium, hand books, manual, etc., (altogether nine printing items) in connection with general elections to the Lok Sabha, 2009. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam issued a short tender notice on February 2, 2009 for printing the aforesaid printing items and the tender offered by the petitioner was accepted. Accordingly, the petitioner has done the printing works and submitted the bill(s). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid printing items fall within the definition of books, periodicals and journals in terms of entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, manuals, etc., is not taxable and comes within the purview of VAT in view of section 9 read with entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Act, 2003, respondent No. 4 turns down the prayer of the petitioner for non-deduction of VAT at four per cent from the bill(s) of the petitioner as sought for by its letter dated April 3, 2009 (annexure G to the writ petition) considering the supply of the aforesaid printing materials on works contract. Mrs. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, while urging for the relief sought for contended that the impugned letter dated September 23, 2009 (annexure M) has been issued in violation of the order of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, respondent No. 5 herein, dated May 28, 2009 (annexure J) on an application under section 105 of the Act, 2003 wherein the taxing authority clarified that the materials supplied by the petitioner were exempted in view of entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Act, 2003 and any administrative authority whatever higher position he holds including respondent No. 4, has no power to alter the same, rather he is bound to be guided by the said decision being it is the taxing authority who c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of Political Parties and candidates 2.. Hand Book for Counting Agents 3.. Hand Book for Polling Agents 4.. Electronic Voting Machine Manual 5.. Hand Book for Returning Officers 6.. Compendium of Instructions on Conduct of Elections 7.. Hand Book for Presiding Officers and on physical verification of the specimen copies, it was held that those were bound books with cover which were exempted from tax as per entry at serial No. 5 of the First Schedule, he contended. He further submits that though the materials supplied by the petitioner are not taxable, but respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated September 23, 2009 informed the petitioner that the Finance (Taxation) Department had not agreed to the request of the petitioner and turned down the same for nondeduction of VAT from the bill(s) submitted by the petitioner for printing hand book, etc., in connection with the general election to Lok Sabha, 2009. Mr. Saikia, while on the one way supporting the clarification of respondent No. 5, on the other way placed reliance on annexure 1 to the affidavit-inopposition filed by respondent No. 6, wherein it is stated that it appears from your endorsement dated August 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Commissioner of Taxes, even if his stand is otherwise correct, as the order of the taxing authority in exercise of his quasi-judicial power will always prevail over the order of the administration/executive authorities, which would be evident from the decisions of the apex court. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1970] 3 SCC 76, the apex court while negating the contention of the learned Attorney General, inter alia, that the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the assessing authority a quasi-judicial authority, held that it is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the assessing authorities exercise quasi-judicial functions and they have duty cast on them to act in a judicial and independent manner. If their judgment is controlled by the directions given by the Collector it cannot be said to be their independent judgment in any sense of the word. An appeal then to the Collector becomes an empty formality. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries [2001] 122 STC 100 (SC); [2000] 9 SCC 66, their Lordship taking no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
