2012 (9) TMI 1210 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are related to the interpretation of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967, specifically regarding the classification and exemption of certain tobacco products under the Act.

Issue 1: Burden of proof for exemption category of sales tax

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal placed the onus on the revenue to prove exemption category of sales tax, contrary to Section 11 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967 which places the burden of proof upon the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue on substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof for exemption claims.

Issue 2: Classification of tobacco products for sales tax exemption

The assessee, a registered dealer in tobacco products, contended that certain items like Gutkha, Khaini, Jarda should be classified as tobacco products and hence exempted from sales tax under the Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim based on evidence provided, including sample pouches of pan masala items and letters from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The Tribunal held that the items in question are indeed tobacco products and exempted from sales tax under the Act.

Issue 3: Levy of tax on Gutkha and Revenue's appeal

Regarding the levy of tax on Gutkha, the Revenue sought to restore the assessment made by the first Appellate Authority, citing previous court decisions. However, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's submission, stating that without filing a cross appeal as per Section 37 of the PGST Act, the claim could not be considered. The Tribunal granted exemption on the sale of certain tobacco products, leading the Revenue to appeal the decision.

Judgment Summary:

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's revisions, upholding the Tribunal's decision to grant exemption on certain tobacco products based on the evidence provided by the assessee and the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, noting that the Revenue itself treated the items as tobacco products in subsequent years. The Court emphasized that the Revenue's failure to follow proper procedures and lack of substantial evidence undermined their appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case (Revisions) were dismissed with no costs awarded.