2018 (4) TMI 1 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - Whether learned Tribunal was justified in maintaining the rejection of the books of accounts despite the fact neither there was any survey nor any adverse material was found in the books of accounts? - Held that - In view of the findings of Deputy Commissioner which were contradictory but shows that all documents verifying provincial purchase were available and still attitude of victimization and arbitrariness was adopted by Assessing Officer and it was vitiated in law, the entire assessment and consequential punishment, therefore cannot be sustained - decided partly in favor of revisionist - few matters were remanded leaving it open to be examined by authorities concerned while passing fresh order - appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts and enhancement of taxable turnover without specific findings.
2. Enhancement of penalty without recording willful omission.
3. Ignoring specific findings and material facts related to taxation on goods.
4. Legal errors and extraneous considerations in passing the order.
5. Contradictory findings of Deputy Commissioner and Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of books of accounts and enhancement of taxable turnover without specific findings
The revisions under Section 11(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were filed against the judgment and order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench 3, Lucknow, relating to Assessment Year 1998-99. The main contention was whether the Tribunal was justified in maintaining the rejection of the books of accounts and enhancing the taxable turnover without any adverse material found in the accounts. The Assessing Officer's order was deemed nonspeaking and perverse, leading to the rejection of accounts and turnover enhancement. The Deputy Commissioner's findings highlighted the victimization and arbitrariness of the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the availability of all documents verifying purchases, contradicting the initial rejection.

Issue 2: Enhancement of penalty without recording willful omission
Revision No. 50 of 2008 questioned the justification of enhancing the penalty under Section 13A(4) of the Act without specific findings of willful omission. The Tribunal's failure to consider specific findings and material facts, such as goods already taxed and not liable for taxation in the state, raised concerns about the legality of the penalty enhancement. The Tribunal's disregard for the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding taxation on goods further compounded the issue.

Issue 3: Ignoring specific findings and material facts related to taxation on goods
The Tribunal's decision to ignore specific findings and material facts related to the taxation on goods, particularly regarding the Central Sales Tax Act provisions and the evasion of tax, was a significant point of contention. The failure to consider the evidence presented and the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process were highlighted as legal errors that vitiated the findings.

Issue 4: Legal errors and extraneous considerations in passing the order
The questions of law raised in both revisions pointed towards legal errors, extraneous considerations, and factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's decision-making process. The Tribunal's failure to address the contradictory findings of the Deputy Commissioner and its cursory manner of upholding the rejection of accounts without thorough examination were deemed as legal errors that tainted the final judgment.

Issue 5: Contradictory findings of Deputy Commissioner and Tribunal
The contradictory findings between the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal regarding the availability of documents verifying purchases and the arbitrary conduct of the Assessing Officer raised concerns about the fairness and legality of the assessment process. The Tribunal's failure to address these contradictions and its hasty decision-making process led to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for a thorough and lawful assessment process that considers all relevant evidence and avoids arbitrary decision-making.

← Previous Next →