2016 (11) TMI 752 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessments - sale of food grains on commission basis - inter-State sales - Held that - there is no inviolable condition that the dispatch must be made within three days. If this conclusion of the Tribunal be correct, it would be all the more important and of relevance for an exercise being undertaken by the assessing authority to identify and bifurcate those transactions in which supplies have been made within three days. More fundamentally, this Court notes that although the order of remand was in respect of transactions held to be inter state sales, the assessing authority has reopened the assessment and also added two additional items while computing additional tax liability. Both these issues in the opinion of this Court warrant a reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal. This would be required not just in respect of the issue of bifurcation of items as noted above but also in respect of the question whether the assessing authority was justified in addition of two items while computing the liability of the revisionist - revision allowed - matter remanded to the Tribunal for a decision afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment proceedings under the 1948 Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Rejection of claim regarding sale of food grains on commission basis.
3. Multiple appeals leading to conflicting decisions.
4. Assessing authority exceeding remand order's scope.
5. Addition of items in the final computation by assessing authority.
6. Disbelief of commission sales case under the 1956 Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved assessment proceedings under the 1948 Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisionist, engaged in the business of food grains and commodities, disputed the treatment of sales as inter-State sales. The matter went through various appeals resulting in conflicting decisions.
2. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the revisionist's claim of sale on commission basis. The first appellate authority remanded the matter, leading to imposition of tax liability. However, the assessing authority exceeded the remand order's scope by adding additional liabilities in the final computation.
3. The Tribunal's order, confirming the assessment, was challenged. The Court noted discrepancies in the assessing authority's actions, including the addition of items not originally part of the assessment order.
4. The assessing authority's inclusion of additional items in the final computation, without proper justification, raised concerns. The Court emphasized the need for a reconsideration by the Tribunal to address these issues and ensure a fair assessment.
5. In a connected revision, the revisionist's case of commission sales was disbelieved under the 1956 Act. The Court directed a remand to the Tribunal for fresh decision, highlighting the need to revise the liability under the 1956 Act accordingly.
6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the revisions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision in light of the observations made, emphasizing the importance of a fair and accurate assessment process.