2014 (2) TMI 1400 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Failure to submit the revised return within the statutory period as prescribed - applicability of documents sought to be produced for the first time - Section 33 (3) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act 2003 - HELD THAT - It is no doubt true that a particular amount is shown under stock transfer and it is equally true that revised return is not filed within the period prescribed under Section 33 (3) of the said Act. While making an assessment on the basis of the return the authorities are not denuded of power to disallow any claim under a particular head if the documents and other evidence suggest otherwise. It is also equally true that if the documents are produced by the Assessee which manifests that the amount shown under a particular head is wrongly shown therein the authorities if otherwise satisfied on the basis of the documents as well as the explanation offered cannot deny the benefit as the petitioner has shown the said amount under a wrong head. The order impugned in this writ petition is bereft of any such reasoning except a stray statement that the Assessee has not explained why the said documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer - Board is directed to reconsider the revisional application upon taking note of the documents filed by the petitioner and shall record the reasons relating to the acceptability or non- acceptability of those documents as well as its relevancy in the context of the dispute - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board regarding stock transfer and revised return submission.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the order of the Assessing Authority, claiming that goods shown as stock transfer were actually imported from abroad and sent outside West Bengal. The Appellate Authority decided the case in the petitioner's absence due to non-appearance. The Board dismissed the revisional application citing failure to submit a revised return timely and refusal to accept newly produced documents. The High Court emphasized that authorities can disallow claims if evidence contradicts the return. The Court highlighted that if documents prove an error in the return, the benefit cannot be denied. Both parties agreed that the Board can consider documents submitted for the first time and must justify reasons for non-production before lower authorities.

The High Court found the Board's order lacking reasoning and unjustly denied the petitioner's claim solely based on the late submission of the revised return. The Court emphasized that if newly produced documents establish an error in the return, the claim cannot be dismissed. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Board's order and directed reconsideration, instructing the Board to evaluate the documents, provide reasons for their acceptance or rejection, and decide the revisional application within four weeks.

The Court clarified that its order should not influence the final decision on the revisional application, allowing authorities to decide independently. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs incurred.