2016 (3) TMI 886 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Allowability of refund/adjustment of CST with interest - In view of the amendment in Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Finance Act, 2000 - Collected CST @ 2% on the branch transfers made of carpet yarn from Bikaner to Bhadoi - Held that - the Revenue has failed to establish that the transactions in question of carpet yarn sent under branch transfer or S.O.S. transfers from Bikaner (Raj.) to Bhadoi (UP) units of the same assessee amounted to inter-State sales made by the Assessee in the period of in question, and therefore, the levy of tax cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, the assessee is clearly entitled either to the refund of the said tax paid by it under a mistake of law and fact, or at least, an adjustment of the said wrong deposit of tax @ 2% on the branch transfers. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund/adjustment of Central Sales Tax (CST) paid on branch transfers.
2. Imposition of interest on CST.
3. Determination of transactions as inter-State sales or branch transfers.

Analysis:
1. The Assessee filed revision petitions challenging the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, which dismissed one appeal and allowed another. The Assessee had collected CST on branch transfers from Bikaner to Bhadoi and sought refund/adjustment. The Deputy Commissioner partially allowed the appeal, upholding tax liability but setting aside interest. The Tax Board upheld both tax and interest, leading to the Assessee's revision petitions.

2. The Assessee argued that the branch transfers were supported by Form 'F' and should not be treated as inter-State sales. The Assessee corrected the mistake in revised returns, seeking adjustment of wrongly paid CST against actual liability. The Revenue failed to prove the transactions as inter-State sales, shifting the burden of proof. The assessing authority rejected evidence without justification, and the appellate authorities failed to apply their minds, leading to unjustified tax imposition.

3. The Court emphasized the need for a contract between different parties for a sale to occur, distinguishing branch transfers from inter-State sales. The Revenue failed to establish the transactions as inter-State sales, lacking evidence of two parties or a contract. The burden of proof rested with the Revenue, which was not discharged properly. The Court found the Assessee entitled to refund/adjustment of wrongly paid CST on branch transfers, with interest, as the tax imposition lacked legal foundation.

4. The Court allowed the revision petitions, granting the Assessee refund/adjustment of wrongly paid CST on branch transfers, with interest. The Revenue was directed to adjust the tax paid under mistake against the Assessee's CST liability, emphasizing the lack of justification for tax imposition. The Court criticized the authorities for failing to fulfill their quasi-judicial functions properly, highlighting the importance of evidence and legal foundation for tax levies.