2015 (3) TMI 341 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Assessee firm establishes that the transactions in question are re-sale and not a sale in Maharashtra, liable to be taxed - Held that - If the transactions are nothing but sale of the goods in Maharashtra and the Revenue has been able to bring material to support its conclusion and ultimate order, then, we do not find any perversity or error of law in the order of the Tribunal. - Tribunal referred to the invoices and other materials placed on record. The invoices produced showed a declaration made under section 12A of the BST. That declaration indicated as to how a representation was made by the Assessee to the purchasers/buyers. That he need not pay tax and that is because the Assessee firm is registered in Maharashtra. That is why the Tribunal concluded that with the aid of the company, the Assessee was trying to wriggle out of this position. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to the relevant legal provision and tax liability. The Tribunal also concluded that the Assessee firm was aware of the fact that the re-assessment was carried out. The assessment was done with due and adequate notice and opportunity to the applicant and his wife. If the sale was within the State of Maharashtra, then, the Assessee firm was liable to pay tax within it because it procured or obtained the goods from outside Maharashtra. The Tribunal concluded that the same is not from principal to principal basis but between the principal to agent and in terms of section 16 of the Act. We do not find as to how such conclusions of the Tribunal could have given rise to any question of law for being answered by this Court. There was no denial of opportunity as contended, inasmuch as full opportunity was given to attend the proceedings at the first appellate stage and even at the second appellate stage. The Assessee was aware of the assessment proceedings, as notices in that regard were duly served and received. The Assessee forwarded documents and if he was in a position to do so and regularly, then, that would indicate that he was aware of what is required to be placed to substantiate and prove his version. Therefore it cannot be said to be a question of law. Every single question is a question of fact and when factual matters are being repeatedly raised, there is no requirement of forwarding the questions and for opinion and answer of this Court. In the Reference Applications we find that the questions at page 16 para 36 of the paper book are nothing but same factual matters. These are essentially matters of appreciation and appraisal of the evidence and materials already on record. If the four questions are nothing but seeking re-appraisal of the factual materials and based on which the concurrent findings have been rendered, then, we do not find any merit in any of these Applications. - Decided against appellant.

Issues:
1) Sales Tax Application No. 2 of 2000 - Main matter determination.
2) Assessment proceedings due to illness and medical ailments.
3) Search and seizure proceedings against the firm and company.
4) Appeal process and subsequent Second Appeals.
5) Reconstitution of accounts and Tribunal's dismissal of Appeals.
6) Rejection of Applications by the Tribunal.
7) Questions of law raised by the Applicant.
8) Tribunal's conclusions and findings on the case.

Analysis:
1) The judgment revolves around Sales Tax Application No. 2 of 2000, which was designated as the main matter by the Court. The Applicant, a sole Proprietor, faced assessment proceedings due to illness and later authorized his wife to represent him. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeals despite the reconstitution of accounts by the company and firm, leading to the Applicant filing Applications challenging the Tribunal's order.

2) Search and seizure proceedings were conducted against the firm and company, resulting in impounded accounts by the authorities. The Applicant's inability to attend proceedings due to sickness led to the matter being decided without his full participation. The subsequent Appeal process and dismissal by the Assistant Commissioner prompted the Applicant to file Second Appeals before the Tribunal, which were admitted.

3) The Tribunal's dismissal of the Appeals based on factual materials and legal provisions led to the rejection of the Applicant's Applications. The Tribunal found no questions of law in the case and emphasized the factual nature of the issues raised by the Applicant. Despite written arguments and submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the Appeals were seeking re-appraisal of existing evidence.

4) The Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the transactions as local sales within Maharashtra, leading to tax liability for the Assessee firm. The Tribunal scrutinized invoices and legal provisions, concluding that the Assessee was attempting to avoid tax obligations through the company. The Tribunal found no error in its order and emphasized the lack of legal questions for the Court to address.

5) Overall, the judgment delves into the procedural history of the case, the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the Appeals, and the Applicant's contentions regarding the legal aspects of the matter. The Court ultimately upheld the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the factual nature of the issues raised and the lack of legal grounds for further review.

← Previous Next →