2009 (10) TMI 841 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liability of entry tax and commercial tax - Whether wrongly been fixed on the petitioner since, there was no sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the alleged import of vanaspati ghee from Nepal? Held that - In the case on hand the assessing authority on the basis of the material collected by the Revenue has fixed the liability of commercial tax and entry tax on the petitioner by reaching to the conclusion that the entry and sale was effected by the petitioner and such a finding does not appear to be perverse or unsupported by material, therefore, it is not required to be interfered with. That in view of the above analysis, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and Entry Tax Act, 1976.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered firm dealing with vanaspati ghee, challenged assessment orders under the Commercial Tax Act and Entry Tax Act for the period April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000. The assessing authority found additional turnover of Rs. 5,75,93,995 of vanaspati ghee allegedly imported and sold by the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner upheld the levy of tax and penalty. The petitioner contended that insufficient material connected them to the alleged import and sale, disputing the assessment based on information collected without their knowledge. The respondents argued that the authorities correctly assessed the turnover based on collected material, disclosing it to the petitioner as per earlier orders. The revisional authority's order was detailed and reasoned, upholding the petitioner's liability.

The dispute centered around the additional turnover of vanaspati ghee imported by the petitioner. The revisional authority found that not only the petitioner but other local dealers were involved in similar imports. Correspondence between tax authorities revealed the import route from Nepal through Muzaffarpur, with admissions by the concerned unit in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the material but failed to provide evidence against the documented imports and their connection to them.

The petitioner challenged the reliance on material not disclosed to them, but the assessing authority had previously remanded the case for proper disclosure and opportunity to present evidence, following principles of natural justice. The burden of proof was on the Revenue, which collected material showing the petitioner's involvement in importing vanaspati ghee. The assessing authority acted within the rules to assess the dealer based on objections and evidence available, especially in cases of clandestine imports.

The petitioner's argument that their agent misused the import license was not supported by evidence, as they admitted to importing vanaspati ghee using the license. The assessing authority's conclusion regarding the petitioner's liability for commercial and entry tax was based on collected material and was not deemed perverse. The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, with no costs awarded.