2013 (11) TMI 653 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of penalty - Whether Mineral water and water sold in sealed Bottles or Containers or otherwise - However, Adjudicating authority found that plastic jar containing 20 litres water has not been sealed by the assessee and it is simply sold after putting a lid on the jar - Held that - The learned appellate authority as well as the learned Tax Board has recorded a concurrent finding of fact based on proper appreciation of materials on record while construing the circular issued by the State Government. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no infirmity, much less legal infirmity, in the impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 against order of Tax Board.
2. Interpretation of circular regarding taxation on mineral water and water sold in sealed bottles or containers.
3. Assessment process conducted by the assessing authority.
4. Appeal process and decisions made by the appellate authority and Tax Board.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 against the order passed by the Tax Board. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer had assessed tax, penalty, and interest for the Assessment Year 2002-03 against the respondent assessee. The appellate authority, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal and overturned the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, then appealed to the Tax Board, which upheld the decision of the appellate authority.

2. The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the circular issued by the State Government regarding the taxation of "Mineral water and water sold in sealed Bottles or Containers." The appellate authority found that a plastic jar containing 20 litres of water, although not sealed by the assessee and simply sold with a lid on the jar, was not taxable at 12% as per the circular. The appellate authority criticized the assessing authority for not conducting a thorough survey of the assessee's business premises, leading to the annulment of the assessment order.

3. The assessing authority's failure to conduct a comprehensive survey of the assessee's business premises and the lack of necessary inquiry were highlighted by the appellate authority. This procedural lapse was a crucial factor in the decision to overturn the assessment order. The learned appellate authority's clear and unequivocal findings regarding the assessing authority's shortcomings played a significant role in the subsequent decisions made by the higher authorities.

4. The decisions made by the appellate authority and the Tax Board were based on a concurrent finding of fact after proper evaluation of the evidence on record and a meticulous analysis of the circular issued by the State Government. The High Court, after hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner Revenue, upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, citing no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tax Board. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of merit in challenging the decisions made by the appellate authority and the Tax Board.