2012 (3) TMI 386 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revised assessment order - Held that - In the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner had filed the F forms for periods in excess of one calendar month and these F forms were before the assessing authority when he passed the initial order dated July 9, 2004 and were accepted for granting exemption from the turnover treating them as consignment sales it is a case of lack of diligence on the part of the assessing authority, not liable to be corrected under section 14(4) of the 1957 Act, in the light of the law declared in Girdharlal 1994 (11) TMI 394 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . For the aforesaid reasons and since the facts in W.P. No. 18564 of 2006 are representative of the facts in the other writ petitions as well and revised assessment orders were issued in purported exercise of powers under section 14(4) of the 1957 Act, we declare the revised assessment orders impugned in these writ petitions as unsustainable. They are accordingly quashed. The writ petitions are allowed

Issues:
1. Challenge to revised assessment orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. Exemption claims on turnover of export and consignment sales.
4. Invocation of power under section 14(4) of the 1957 Act.
5. Validity of revised assessment orders based on lack of diligence by the assessing authority.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged revised assessment orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, Hyderabad, under section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in the manufacture and sale of various products, contested the assessment order for the year 2002-03, which included turnover from export and consignment sales. The respondent initially granted exemptions but later proposed revisions based on discrepancies in submitted forms and imposed additional tax liabilities.

2. The petitioner's case involved interpretation of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, specifically regarding the acceptance of declarations in form C for inter-State sales turnover. The petitioner obtained form C after the assessment order, leading to a reduction in the tax rate on the relevant turnover. However, subsequent issues arose concerning the validity of F forms submitted for consignment sales periods exceeding one calendar month, triggering a proposed levy of tax at 10% on such transactions not covered by C declarations.

3. The exemption claims on turnover from export and consignment sales formed a crucial aspect of the dispute. The petitioner sought exemption on specific turnovers but faced challenges due to discrepancies in the forms submitted. The respondent, after reviewing the F forms and identifying violations of rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, withdrew the exemptions and determined additional tax liabilities, leading to the revised assessment orders.

4. The judgment delved into the invocation of power under section 14(4) of the 1957 Act, which allows for revision of assessment orders under certain conditions. The petitioner argued against the validity of invoking this provision, citing precedents where the court emphasized the necessity of material de hors the record for such revisions. The court highlighted the importance of non-application of mind by the assessing authority at the time of assessment as not constituting a justifiable ground for exercising power under section 14(4).

5. Ultimately, the court declared the revised assessment orders unsustainable, emphasizing the lack of diligence on the part of the assessing authority in reviewing the submitted forms and granting exemptions. Relying on precedents, the court quashed the revised assessment orders, noting that the facts of the case, including the issues with F forms and the assessing authority's handling of the matter, did not warrant corrective action under section 14(4) of the 1957 Act.

← Previous Next →