1994 (11) TMI 385 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of defects in "C" forms.
2. Wrong classification of turnover under tax categories.
3. Scope of the remand order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC).
4. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the assessee against the consequential order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Defects in "C" Forms:
The AAC remanded the case to the assessing officer to rectify defects in 7 "C" forms by filing the rectified duplicate copies. Upon remand, the assessing officer found that the defects were rectified, and the taxable turnover of Rs. 4,29,963 covered by these forms was taxed at 4% instead of the previously assessed 10%.

2. Wrong Classification of Turnover Under Tax Categories:
The AAC identified a totalling error where a turnover of Rs. 5,000 was wrongly classified and taxed at 10% instead of 4%. The assessing officer corrected this by deducting Rs. 5,000 from the 10% category and adding it to the 4% category. Additionally, a turnover of Rs. 12,589.50 was corrected from 13% to 10% as the goods sold were other than auto parts.

3. Scope of the Remand Order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC):
The AAC's remand order dated May 7, 1983, was specific to two items: Rs. 4,28,332.24 and Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal erred in directing the AAC to consider disputes not raised in the original assessment or the first appeal. The remand was not for a fresh assessment in its entirety but limited to correcting specific mistakes.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal Filed by the Assessee Against the Consequential Order:
The assessee filed an appeal against the consequential order passed on July 31, 1984, disputing turnovers of Rs. 75,408 and Rs. 66,392, which were not raised in earlier proceedings. The AAC held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee was not aggrieved by the consequential order, which complied with the remand directions. The Tribunal's decision to remand the disputed turnover to the AAC was set aside, restoring the AAC's order dated October 29, 1984.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the State's revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the AAC's order dated October 29, 1984. The appeal filed by the assessee was deemed not maintainable as it raised new disputes not covered by the specific remand order.