9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 617 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of claim of sales return - Period of limitation and non production of documents - Goods returned for the respective tax period of July 2006 - Held that - if the person to whom the goods were sold has confirmed that the goods were dispatched by way of return of goods, since the material as per them was found to be of inferior quality, the said aspect could not have been ignored or in any case the application of mind on the part of the Commissioner was required before reaching the conclusion that the say of the appellant for return of the sales cannot be accepted. - Matter remanded back
Issues involved:
Appeal against the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-3, Bangalore; rejection of sales returns claim under CST Act and KVAT Act; revision of assessment; consideration of documents and evidence; application of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner; remand for reconsideration. Analysis: The appeal was admitted against the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-3, Bangalore, setting aside the Appellate Order dated 10.01.2014 and restoring the revised assessment. The appellant, a registered dealer under the CST Act and KVAT Act, claimed goods returned worth &8377; 58,12,800/- for July 2006, which was rejected by the Assessing Authority for being beyond the stipulated time and lack of supporting documents. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals] modified the assessment to levy Central Sales Tax at 4%, but the Additional Commissioner set aside this order in suo motu revision. The High Court found that the Commissioner overlooked crucial evidence, including a letter confirming the rejection of goods due to inferior quality and transport receipts, indicating a need for reconsideration. Upon review, it was noted that the Commissioner failed to consider important aspects, such as a letter confirming the rejection of goods and transport receipts, which supported the appellant's claim of sales returns. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner should have taken into account the confirmation from the buyer regarding the goods' return due to inferior quality. The Court concluded that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration, with directions to pass an appropriate order after hearing both parties and in accordance with the law. The impugned Order was set aside, and the suo motu revision was restored to the Commissioner for further review within six months from the date of the Court's Judgment. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the impugned Order, with no costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence and documents, ensuring a fair and thorough assessment in matters of revisional jurisdiction related to sales returns under the CST Act and KVAT Act.
|
