1986 (2) TMI 325 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notifications exempting poppy husk from sales tax.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to rectify orders without notice or hearing.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for rectification orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm dealing in poppy husk and poppy seeds, was assessed to pay Central sales tax for a specific period. The petitioner contended that a notification exempting poppy husk from sales tax should apply to Central sales tax as well. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision and remanded the case to exclude poppy husk sales. The subsequent notification wholly exempted poppy husk from sales tax for a specified period subject to certain conditions. The assessing authority was directed to grant exemption for the entire assessment period.

2. Following the remand, a fresh assessment was conducted exempting poppy husk sales and imposing Central sales tax on other goods. Subsequently, respondent No. 1, without notice or hearing, passed a rectification order dismissing the revision, stating the exemption claimed was not available. The petitioner argued that the rectification order was without jurisdiction as no notice or hearing was provided, as required by law.

3. The court found that the rectification order lacked jurisdiction as it did not comply with the mandatory requirement of providing written notice to the dealer before rectifying the order. The law prohibits rectifications that enhance tax or reduce refunds without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. As the petitioner was not given the required notice, the order of rectification was deemed invalid and quashed. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the rectification order was quashed, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.