2010 (3) TMI 997 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund of sales tax deposited by the assessee.
2. Burden of sales tax passed on to customers.
3. Identification of customers for refund.

Entitlement to refund of sales tax deposited by the assessee:
The case involved the assessment year 1998-99 where the petitioner-assessee, operating a flour mill, claimed exemption from sales tax due to incentives provided by the State Government. The lower authorities ruled in favor of the assessee on this matter. However, the main issue was whether the assessee was eligible for a refund of the sales tax already paid. Both the appellate authority and the Tribunal denied the refund, citing that the burden of tax had been transferred to customers, leading to unjust enrichment if a refund was granted. The authorities pointed out that the assessee had included sales tax in the sale price since 2000 and had not made any reverse entries in the account books to indicate bearing the tax burden themselves. Additionally, the assessee had issued GST forms to dealers, clearly stating the inclusion of sales tax in the price, indicating that the burden was passed on to customers.

Burden of sales tax passed on to customers:
The authorities found that the assessee had effectively passed on the burden of sales tax to customers, as evidenced by the inclusion of tax in the sale price and the lack of reverse entries in the account books. The issuance of GST forms further supported the conclusion that the customers bore the ultimate burden of the tax. The inability to identify individual customers who purchased the product made it impractical to refund the tax directly to them. The factual determination of whether the assessee had charged sales tax to customers was deemed conclusive and not subject to challenge in the reference petition.

Identification of customers for refund:
Given the impossibility of identifying individual customers who purchased the product and bore the burden of sales tax, the authorities concluded that refunding the tax to customers was unfeasible. The inability to pinpoint specific customers who paid the tax rendered the refund process impracticable. Consequently, the reference petition seeking a refund was rejected, emphasizing that the finding on the assessee passing on the tax burden to customers was a factual determination beyond the scope of review in the petition. No costs were awarded in the matter.