9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation filed by the petitioner, being Revision Case No.MZ-118/2007 relating to the assessment period 1999-2000, was rejected and also for quashing the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sitamarhi Circle, Sitamarhi, by which he has imposed tax liability to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- and also penalty of Rs. 1,300/- under Section 16 (8) of the Bihar FINANCE Act, 1981 and other consequential reliefs. The case of the petitioner is that it is a whole sale dealer of the Indian OIL Corporation in the distribution of K. OIL which is a controlled commodity, for which licences have to be obtained under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X-C after the date of assessment but even the said declaration did not contain the signature of the competent authority of the Indian Oil Corporation and had to be sent back to get the signature. The petitioner, therefore, against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tirhut Division, Muzafarrpur, filed a revision application before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, which was numbered as Revision Case No.MZ-118/2007 making the prayer that the only issue to be considered was non-production of declaration in Form IX-C on the date of assessment and seeking an opportunity to produce the same before the Assessing Authority, as the subsequent sale effected by the petitioner was exempted during the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no question of any suppression considering the fact that the petitioner had taken all steps in the matter both at the stage of appeal and at the stage of revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it would be unconscionable for the State to charge and retain tax twice when the same is not at all permissible under the provisions of the Bihar FINANCE Act and on mere technicalities, the petitioner ought not to have been non-suited by the Appellate Authority or by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the writ application itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 79 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 under which an appeal would lie against the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of levy of any tax or penalty upon the same. However, the petitioner could not do so, as the authorities of the Indian OIL Corporation had failed to issue the said Form IX-C to the petitioner which is dated 25.3.2004 and had reached the petitioner after the order dated 26.3.2004 was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and even thereafter the same had required correction of mistake as it did not contain the signature of the authorized officer of the Indian OIL Corporation. In such circumstances, it is not the petitioner who can be blamed rather Form IX-C was delivered to the petitioner after passing of the assessment order and the Appellate Authority and the Revisional should have considered that aspect of the matter and not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
