2017 (5) TMI 1062 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of tax on the exempted inter State Sales effected to SEZ Units - Form-F - Held that - Form VAT 240 submitted by the petitioner which was inclusive of the sales made to SEZ unit and by mistake the 1st respondent had once again estimated the interstate sales to SEZ Unit without declaration forms and subjected the same to turnover to tax twice. But despite the lapse of two months neither of the rectification applications have been decided either by respondent No.1 or by respondent No.2 - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification application for recalling an order dated 31.03.2016.
2. Rectification application for decision on a notice dated 12.08.2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, filed a rectification application before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – II to recall an order dated 31.03.2016, which partially allowed an appeal but directed the 1st respondent to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of exemption of Sales to SEZ units against Form-I. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a demand notice on 12.08.2016, re-computing the turnover and tax liability by levying tax on exempted inter State Sales to SEZ Units. The petitioner contended that the demand notice was illegal as Form-I had already been submitted. The petitioner also filed a rectification application regarding the demand notice before the 1st respondent, highlighting errors in the turnover calculation. Both rectification applications remained undecided for two months, prompting the petitioner to approach the Court.

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was moved by the petitioner against the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 31.03.2016 and the notice dated 12.08.2016. The petitioner, facing non-acceptance of Form-I by the 1st respondent, filed rectification applications before the 2nd respondent to reconsider the turnover computation and provide necessary directions. Despite the lapse of two months, neither rectification application was decided by the respondents, leading to the current petitions before the Court.

During the proceedings, the respondent assured that if directed, they would decide the rectification applications within a month. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of rectification applications once filed. Consequently, the Court directed both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the petitioner's rectification applications within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order, thereby disposing of the petitions.