2010 (3) TMI 1023 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining a rectification order issued by the assessing officer under section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act whereunder original assessment on the turnover tax liability of the petitioner under section 7 of the Act was modified to cover entire purchase value of liquor sold during the relevant assessment year? Held that - Where the assessment is made patently against the mandatory provisions it could be corrected in rectification proceedings under section 43. In our view this is a fit case for rectifying the assessment originally done wrongly. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal on the jurisdiction aspect as well as on the merits. Consequently S.T. Revision is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act regarding payment of tax at compounded rates.
2. Validity of rectification order issued by the assessing officer under Section 43 of the Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in sustaining the rectification order.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 7:
The petitioner, a bar hotel owner, was liable to pay turnover tax on liquor sales under Section 5(2) of the Act. However, Section 7 allowed for an alternative method of settling tax liability at a compounded rate based on the purchase turnover of liquor. The issue revolved around whether the purchase price mentioned in Section 7 includes the opening stock of liquor. The court clarified that the purchase price under Section 7 encompasses the entire liquor sold during the relevant year, including the opening stock. The original assessment, which failed to consider the purchase value of the opening stock, was deemed incorrect and subject to rectification under Section 43.

2. Validity of Rectification Order:
The assessing officer rectified the assessment under Section 43 by including the actual purchase turnover of liquor, which comprised the opening stock but excluded the closing stock. The petitioner contested this rectification, arguing that it was beyond the officer's jurisdiction and that the original assessment was incorrect on its merits. The court held that rectification under Section 43 was justified when the original assessment contravened mandatory provisions, as in this case. The assessment was considered to be patently erroneous, warranting correction through rectification proceedings. Therefore, the rectification order was upheld as valid.

3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal's role was to determine the validity of the rectification order issued by the assessing officer. After analyzing the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found that the rectification was appropriate due to the fundamental error in the original assessment. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the S.T. Revision and upholding the rectification order on both jurisdictional grounds and on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to sustain the rectification order was deemed appropriate and legally sound.