2019 (5) TMI 1733 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of entry tax - Section 9(4) of the Entry Tax - purchase of cement - HELD THAT - There is no challenge raised to the said assessment before any of the appellate authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist had raised the said ground before any of the appellate authorities. There is also nothing on record to show that the assessment is perverse or illegal. Since the revisionist has not raised the said ground, which is factual in nature, before any of the appellate courts, hence, he cannot dispute the same at this stage. Rectification of mistake - HELD THAT - The learned Standing Counsel admits that there appears to be a calculation mistake and the said demand requires to be corrected - Both the revision are disposed of to the extent that on purchase of brick of ₹ 9,56,000/- the tax figure is corrected from ₹ 4,78,250/- to ₹ 47,825/-.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of entry tax on the revisionist.
2. Assessment order under Section 3(6) of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008.
3. Challenge of assessment order in appellate authorities.
4. Correctness of tax assessment by the assessing authority.
5. Calculation mistake in imposing tax on unregistered purchase of brick.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed two trade tax revisions filed by the revisionist concerning entry tax. The revisionist, engaged in construction business, was taxed under Section 9(4) of the Entry Tax Act. The court consolidated both revisions due to the same facts and circumstances, focusing on the imposition of entry tax totaling ?44,040 and ?19,040 on the revisionist for construction activities. The court considered the common issues and decided both revisions simultaneously.

2. The revisionist's assessment order under Section 3(6) of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008, was challenged through appeals. Despite the initial order being remanded, subsequent assessment orders were passed and appealed. The tribunal rejected the appeals, leading to the current revisions before the High Court.

3. The revisionist's counsel acknowledged that the grounds for the revisions were no longer valid due to settled law. However, two submissions were raised. Firstly, disputing the correctness of the assessing authority's tax assessment on different articles, claiming it to be arbitrary and baseless. The court noted that as the revisionist did not challenge the assessment before appellate authorities, they could not dispute it at the current stage.

4. Secondly, the revisionist argued that a calculation error led to the incorrect imposition of tax on unregistered brick purchases. The tax was wrongly calculated at 50% instead of 5% on a purchase of ?9,56,000, resulting in an excessive demand. The Standing Counsel admitted the mistake, and the court corrected the tax figure from ?4,78,250 to ?47,825 on the brick purchase.

5. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of both revisions by correcting the tax amount on the brick purchase. The judgment highlighted the importance of raising factual grounds before appellate authorities and rectified the calculation error in the tax imposition, ensuring fair treatment for the revisionist in the tax assessment process.