9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra Value Added Tax Act 2002 (for short 'MVAT Act') read with Section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is in the nature of a rectification order, by which the Assessment order dated 31 March 2021 for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 of the petitioner No. 1 has been purportedly rectified to re-determine the turnover of the petitioner No. 1 so as to add to the turnover, a tax liability which is worked out in the operative part of the order and thereby raising a duty demand of Rs. 17,58,06,021/-. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of Jewellery. It is contended that it has its own manufacturing as well as it manufactures jewellery on job work basis for others. It has two places of business, one at Mumbai a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) is placed on record for the purpose clarity before this Court. 5. Be that as it may, it appears from the record that the Assessment Officer has proceeded to make the Assessment Order dated 31 March 2021 considering the Audit Report, Balance sheet, month wise sales and purchase summary statement, details of goods return, declarations in Form 'F', details of job work charges etc., and the same were verified and had ordered that the balance tax payable was Nil. The operative part of the Assessment Order is required to be noted which reads thus:- "Dealer had filed refund application No. 000037024551 dated 26/09/2018 for Rs. 36,84,834/-, against which part refund was sanctioned 33,06,970.8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer - Assistant Commissioner of State Tax issued a notice to the petitioner dated 31 September 2021 under Section 24(1) of the MVAT Act, being a notice for rectification of mistake which, according to the Assessing Officer, had occurred in passing of Assessment Order dated 31 March 2021. It is seen from the said notice that the Assessing Officer stated that during the assessment period in question, the petitioner had claimed Rs. 26,21,68,894/- towards labour charges and same is deducted from gross turnover of sales as per letter dated 21 March 2021 of the petitioner. It was stated by the department that by the Mumbai office has received the gold bar for manufacturing of ornament from the customer and same were sent to the head office a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, Coimbatore had issued a letter dated 25 October 2021 wherein it was recorded that asking 'F' forms for job work transaction was not acceptable as well as there was no need of Form 'F' for the transactions. A copy of the said letter was also submitted. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambika Steels Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009)14 SCC 309 wherein the Supreme Court had observed that certain States within whose jurisdiction the transferee is located, if are not issuing form "F", in such eventuality, it is open to the Assessing Officer to complete reassessment proceedings on its own merits after verifying the transactions between the parties, keeping in mind the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms. It is petitioners' case that the Apex Court has in very clear terms expressed that when a certain State, within whose jurisdiction the transferee is located, is not issuing form F, then in such an eventuality it would be open to the Assessing Officer to complete reassessment proceedings on its own merits after examining the transaction between the parties, keeping in mind the circumstances that the assessee is not in a position to obtain form F for no fault of his. Notwithstanding this settled position, in our view, respondent no. 3 insisting on form F is, prima facie, not tenable. 2. Therefore, Rule. Mr. Takke waives service. 3. Ad-interim in terms of prayer clause (k) is granted. 4. Affidavit in reply to be filed and copy se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that even a clear position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ambika Steels Ltd. (supra) as followed by this Court in Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) has also not taken into consideration. For such reason, it is submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 14. On the other hand Ms. Chavan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. She has drawn our attention to the operative portion of the impugned order, to submit that the Assessing Officer has appropriately taken into consideration all the materials. She submits that what was shown to the department as a branch transfer of the goods amounting to Rs. 2,09,45,018/- and hence, her submission is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
