2008 (3) TMI 643 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to change the facts regarding the date of passing assessment order from April 10, 1997 to March 31, 1997? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in granting interest under section 43A of the BST Act, 1959 even when the said section was incorporated with effect from April 1, 1995 and was not operating during the assessment period 1993-94? Held that - As far as the first question is concerned there are two dates just below the body of the assessment order. A date March 31, 1997 is typed. The signature of the assessing officer does not contain any date thereunder. Yet, another date is shown as April 10, 1997 on the left hand side below the judgment but there is no signature therein above. In our view, only a disputed question of fact and no question of law arises in this case. The second date April 10, 1997 as shown below the judgment is not below the signature of the assessing officer. There is no date below the signature of the assessing officer. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and therefore, in our view, the first substantial question of law as framed does not arise. Also an attempt appears to have been made by the assessing officer to deprive the assessee of the benefit of a refund. This is a very serious matter and therefore, we direct the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take steps to fix the responsibility and initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officer.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to change the date of passing the assessment order.
2. Legality of granting interest under section 43A of the BST Act, 1959.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against a chemical company regarding a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner initially allowed a refund, but a revision by the Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessment order due to jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal later allowed the chemical company's appeal, stating the assessment order was within the limitation period. The Commissioner sought to refer two questions of law, one regarding changing the assessment order date and the other about granting interest under section 43A. The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion on the assessment order date was a possible view based on facts, not a legal issue, and dismissed the first question.

2. Regarding the second question on interest under section 43A, the High Court noted that the provision was enacted after the assessment period in question, so the Commissioner conceded not to press for interest. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on this issue. Additionally, the High Court highlighted the assessing officer's potential attempt to deprive the chemical company of the refund by manipulating dates. The court directed the Commissioner of Sales Tax to conduct an inquiry, fix responsibility, and take necessary action against the erring officer within six months.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the reference application after addressing the substantial questions of law raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the chemical company, emphasizing the importance of integrity and fair practices in tax assessments and refunds.