1991 (1) TMI 406 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of sales proportion for kerosene oil in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four revisions related to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, filed by both the department and the assessee. The Sales Tax Tribunal had fixed the proportionate sales of the assessee at Delhi and Uttar Pradesh at 50% for the disputed years based on seized documents and evidence. However, both parties contested the ratio set by the Tribunal as erroneous. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider past and subsequent history while fixing the sales proportion and disregarded evidence presented by the assessee. The Tribunal's findings were deemed legally flawed as it did not refer to the documents and materials provided by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the orders were vitiated in law.

The High Court, upon examining the original records, found that the assessee had submitted lists and details of documents to support their contentions before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not make any reference to these materials or the evidence presented before the Sales Tax Officer. Consequently, the Court upheld the assessee's contentions, stating that the Tribunal's conclusions and the fixation of sales proportion were legally flawed. As a result, the Court allowed all four revisions, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.

Given the age of the dispute and the availability of relevant materials on record, the Court decided not to remit the matter back to the assessing authority. Instead, the Sales Tax Tribunal was directed to rehear the appeals, considering all documents filed before it and the assessing authority, along with the account books of the assessee. The Tribunal was instructed to reach a decision promptly, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties involved. The petitions were allowed, with no orders as to costs, emphasizing the need for a fresh hearing to resolve the controversy effectively.