2021 (2) TMI 502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of Mistake - HELD THAT - The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient. The application is allowed. Order dated 27.2.2020 is corrected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correction of order dated 27.2.2020.
2. Revision against judgment and order dated 26.04.2019.
3. Questions of law admitted for revision.
4. Classification of goods for assessment year 2014-15.
5. Dispute over tax rate on "Gain Measuring Instrument."
6. Expert opinion on classification of instruments.
7. Tribunal's rejection of expert opinion and classification.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed a C.M. Application for the correction of an order. The revision was filed against a judgment from the Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2014-15. The revisionist, a supplier of "Gain Measurement Instrument," disputed the tax rate applied to the goods. The key questions of law admitted for revision pertained to the classification of the goods and the application of specific commodity codes. The revisionist argued that the instruments supplied fell under a specific entry in the Schedule of Rates under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.

The revisionist presented an expert opinion supporting the classification of the instruments as Gain Measuring Instruments. However, the Assessing Authority disagreed and classified the goods as unclassified items taxed at 14%. The First Appellate Authority and the Full Bench of Commercial Tax Tribunal upheld this classification, rejecting the expert opinion. The revisionist contended that the Tribunal erred in not giving due weightage to the expert opinion and failing to seek additional expert opinions.

The High Court found that the Tribunal's rejection of the expert report without seeking further expert opinion was a material irregularity. The Court allowed the revision, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to seek expert opinion within six months for a proper classification of the instruments supplied by the revisionist. The judgment emphasized the importance of expert opinions in technical matters and the need for due consideration by the authorities involved.