2001 (10) TMI 1120 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of exemptions on export sales under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Power of appellate authority to enhance assessment under section 34 of the Act and its limitation.
3. Interpretation of the exercise of power under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in relation to the period of limitation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of exemptions on export sales under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
The petitioner, a dealer in hides and skins, contested assessments for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86 due to incomplete allowance of exemptions on export sales under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority initially allowed exemptions based on form "H" declarations but not in full. Various appeals and remands followed, leading to challenges before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Power of appellate authority to enhance assessment under section 34 of the Act and its limitation
The contention raised was whether the power of the appellate authority under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Act to enhance assessments was restricted by the limitation prescribed in section 19 of the Act. The argument was that bringing exempted turnover for assessment constituted escaped assessment, triggering the application of section 19. References were made to legal precedents, including decisions from the Lahore High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the exercise of power under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in relation to the period of limitation
The Court analyzed previous judgments, including Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Abdul Salam and Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co., to determine that the exercise of power under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Act was not bound by the limitation for bringing in escaped turnover under section 19. The Court emphasized that revisional power is part of appellate power, and there is no limitation on the Deputy Commissioner directing the assessing authority to re-examine cases involving enhancement, even in exemption claims.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that there was no limitation on the exercise of power under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal's orders were affirmed, and the revisions were dismissed.