2008 (4) TMI 690 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appealable order - Held that - The appellant was on March 24, 2000 originally assessed for the assessment year 1997-98 on a taxable turnover of ₹ 4,72,07,862.The earlier order dated March 24, 2000 was rectified to that effect. In respect of the other turnover, i.e., inter-State sales covered by C form ₹ 11,46,763 at four per cent and consignment sales not covered by form F ₹ 88,25,714 taxable at eight per cent, there was no change. The entire relief sought for by the appellant in respect of the third turnover, i.e., stock transfer to Bangalore branch has been totally granted by accepting the form F produced by the appellant. Thus, the order rectifying the earlier order dated March 24, 2000 is only the rectification order granting the relief as sought for by the assessee. In respect of the rest of the turnover, no dispute was raised by the assessee. The contention of the learned counsel that the order passed under section 55 of the Act granting the relief is an appealable order is not acceptable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the correctness of the order dated October 23, 2003 made in Writ Petition No. 38269 of 2002.
2. Assessment of the appellant as a dealer in iron and steel for the assessment year 1997-98.
3. Dispute regarding the levy of tax on consignment sales turnover.
4. Appeal against the order of the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Interpretation of the appeal provision under section 31 of the TNGST Act.
6. Application of the decision in the case of Kundan Lal Srikishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1987] 65 STC 62.
7. Reopening of the assessment under section 16 of the TNGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a dealer in iron and steel, filed an appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated October 23, 2003, made in Writ Petition No. 38269 of 2002. The appellant's taxable turnover for the assessment year 1997-98 was assessed, including various turnovers such as inter-State sales, consignment sales, and stock transfer to Bangalore branch. A subsequent order dated May 31, 2000 rectified the assessment by accepting form F for the turnover related to the stock transfer to Bangalore branch, granting relief to the appellant.

2. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal against the consignment sales turnover, stating that the appellant had already been granted the relief sought for in the order dated May 31, 2000. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The appellant, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's order, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned single judge. The appellant contended that the subsequent order dated May 31, 2000, rectifying the assessment, was appealable under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 31 of the TNGST Act.

3. The court analyzed the provisions of section 55 of the TNGST Act, which allows rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The appellant argued that the rectification order should be considered an appealable order, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that the rectification order granting relief did not make the original assessment order appealable, especially when no dispute was raised regarding other turnovers.

4. The court distinguished the case of Kundan Lal Srikishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1987] 65 STC 62, stating that it was not applicable to the present case. The court highlighted the importance of the original assessment order not being reopened under section 16 for the cited judgment to be relevant. Additionally, the court referred to the decision in India Cements Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai [1972] 30 STC 516, emphasizing the finality of orders not appealed against.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the rectification order under section 55 of the TNGST Act did not fall within the appeal provisions specified in section 31 or section 31A of the TNGST Act. The court's decision was based on the lack of grounds for appeal against the rectification order, as the relief sought by the appellant had already been granted.