2017 (8) TMI 1451 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Suo-moto revision - Reopening of assessment - reopening of assessment on the ground of short levy of Tax on Aluminium Composite Panel, which was liable to be taxed under residuary entry @ 12.5% - Is the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax Appeal amenable to suo-motu revision by the Additional Commercial Commissioner under Section 47 (2) of the M.P. VAT Act? Held that - Bare perusal of provisions of the act would reveal that Section 3 deals with appointment of the Commissioner and officers to assist him as taxing authority. Prior to M.P. VAT (Amendment) Act, 2006, clause (b) of Section 3 dealt with the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal) as one of the Officer to assist the Commissioner, but after the amendment, it ceased to exist in Section 3 of the Act - Simultaneously, Section 3A was inserted in the Statute to provide for appointment of Appellate Authority by the State Government not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Thus, the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal) is final and is not amenable to suo-motu revisional powers conferred by Section 47 of the Act. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax Appeal is amenable to suo-motu revision by the Additional Commercial Commissioner under Section 47 (2) of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, was assessed to VAT at 4% for the assessment year 2008-2009. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened due to a short levy of tax on Aluminium Composite Panel, which was supposed to be taxed at 12.5%. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeal) deleted the additional tax levy, leading to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax issuing a notice for suo-motu revision under Section 47(2) of the VAT Act. The petitioner contended that the Dy. Commissioner's order was not amenable to such revision. The court examined relevant provisions of the VAT Act, emphasizing that after the amendment, the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal) became final without further appeal or revision. The court held that the order was not subject to suo-motu revisional powers under Section 47 of the Act, quashing the show cause notice and the subsequent order. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting taxing statutes based on the natural construction of words and ensuring that subjects are taxed only if they fall within the letter of the law.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal) was final and not open to suo-motu revision. The show cause notice and subsequent order for revision were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with costs imposed on the respondent.