2016 (3) TMI 1290 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of demand notice - BVAT Act - Section 31(1) of the Bihar VAT Act - Held that - It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that certain contentions have been raised by the petitioner regarding non-revision of the MRP on the bottles and in particular the reply of the petitioner that the sale had been made at a much lower price on the basis of old MRP printed on the bottles. The impugned assessment order does not clearly indicate whether the revised MRP was printed on the bottles or not and the levy of VAT-3 has been made on the basis of actual sale price at which they have been sold and not the MRP as printed on the bottles, which cannot be the basis for levy of sales tax. The petitioner having made clear that the sale had been made at a lower price than the revised MRP then the respondents are obliged to pass order under Section 31(1) on the basis of actual sale price at which the goods had been sold - he impugned orders are quashed with a liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to VAT notices and assessment orders for 2014-15 and 2015-16 periods.

Analysis:
The petitioner initially challenged notices for VAT-3 payment for 2014-15 and 2015-16 periods. Subsequently, challenged demand notices and assessment orders for both periods. Petitioner claimed not collecting VAT-3 due to receiving stocks at lower prices than revised MRP. Requested exemption for 2014-15 and determination of VAT-3 based on actual sale price for 2015-16. Petitioner sought abeyance pending writ application challenging VAT levy at every sale point. Despite petitioner's response to notices, ex parte orders were passed based on BSBCL data.

The petitioner argued VAT should be based on actual sale price, not revised MRP. Petitioner should have been allowed to provide sales details and books of accounts before passing ex parte orders. State contended petitioner did not participate or provide supporting documents, leading to ex parte orders for both periods. Dispute arose over MRP revision on bottles and sale prices based on old MRP.

The assessment order did not clarify if revised MRP was on bottles, and VAT-3 was levied based on actual sale prices, not MRP. Since petitioner sold goods below revised MRP, VAT-3 should be determined based on actual sale prices. Court quashed impugned orders, allowing respondents to proceed afresh. Petitioner instructed to file returns and appear before Assistant Commissioner for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the writ application was disposed of, directing the petitioner to comply with return filing and appearance requirements. The impugned orders were quashed, providing an opportunity for fresh proceedings based on actual sale prices for VAT-3 determination.