2001 (7) TMI 1263 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
- Application challenging the order dated April 20, 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle.
- Prayer for reopening assessment for the period ending March 31, 1999 under section 46A(4) of the 1994 Act.
- Determination of whether the application for reopening the assessment is barred by time.

Analysis:
1. The application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 challenges the order dated April 20, 2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle. The applicants seek to reopen the assessment for the period ending March 31, 1999 under section 46A(4) of the 1994 Act, which was deemed to have been made under section 46A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal heard this application along with another related application, RN-259 of 2001, due to similar facts and legal implications.

2. The issue arose regarding the classification of tea seed grown and sold by the applicant as flower seed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner, in a previous order, found no difference between tea seed and Camelia flower seed. Subsequently, section 46A of the 1994 Act came into effect, deeming the assessment for the period ending March 31, 1999 without reference to books of account. The applicants learned about this deemed assessment on November 23, 2000, and filed a petition on January 15, 2001, seeking to reopen the assessment for a refund of taxes paid on the sales of tea seed.

3. The main contention revolved around the limitation period for filing the application for reopening the deemed assessment. The petitioners argued that the limitation should start from the date of receipt of the assessment order, which was November 23, 2000, rather than the date of the order itself, which was December 31, 1999. They claimed that their application was within the statutory six-month limit and challenged the Deputy Commissioner's finding as arbitrary and illegal.

4. The State Representative supported the Deputy Commissioner's decision, stating that the limitation period should start from the statutorily fixed date of the deemed assessment, which was December 31, 1999. The State Representative argued that the legislative intent was clear regarding the timeline for informing the authorities about any excess payment and reopening the assessment under section 46A(4) of the Act.

5. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both sides regarding the limitation period. The petitioners contended that the date of the order should be considered as the date of communication of the assessment order, which was November 23, 2000. They referenced a previous ruling to support their position. However, the Tribunal agreed with the State Representative, emphasizing that the legislative intent was evident in section 46A of the Act, which clearly specified the date of deemed assessment as December 31, 1999.

6. Considering the provisions of section 46A and section 45(1) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the limitation period for filing the application for reopening the assessment started from the date of the deemed assessment, i.e., December 31, 1999. The Tribunal found no merit in the petitioners' argument and upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision that the application for reopening the assessment was not maintainable due to being barred by time.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications in both cases, RN-258 of 2001 and RN-259 of 2001, with no order as to costs, affirming that the applications were not maintainable due to being filed beyond the statutory limitation period.

← Previous Next →