9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 471 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of Sales Tax - Rubber Polisher, V-Belt and Hose pipe - covered under first point levy of Tax prior to Finance Department Notification No.14691-CTA-37/2001 dated 31.7.2001 or not - disallowance of declaration Form No.XXXIV, proper or not - HELD THAT - It is evident that inclusion of spare parts in terms of the notification dated 31st March, 2001 for the purposes of first point tax was intended to be prospective. In other words, there is nothing in the said notification to indicate that applies to a prior period. In the present case, since the assessment pertains to the year 1999-2000, the question of applying the aforementioned notification dated 31 st March, 2001 did not arise. The Court answers the question framed in the negative in favour of the assessee against the Department. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the items in question were exigible to first point tax for the year in question i.e. 1999-2000. It is held that disallowance of declaration form-XXXIV filed by the Petitioner was not proper. Revision petition disposed off.
Issues:
Interpretation of Finance Department Notification No.14691-OTA-37/2001 for first point tax liability for spare parts. Disallowance of declaration Form No.XXXIV for assessment year 1999-2000. Analysis: The judgment revolves around a revision petition stemming from an order by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal concerning the assessment year 1999-2000. The petitioner, a registered dealer of rubber products, challenged the disallowance of sales under declaration Form-XXXIV by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST). The key question was whether rubber polisher, V-Belt, and hose pipe were subject to first point tax prior to Finance Department Notification No.14691-CTA-37/2001. The ACST relied on the said notification effective from 1st April, 2001, to hold the petitioner liable for the tax, shifting the burden from the buyer. The Tribunal upheld this decision, prompting the revision petition. Upon examination, the High Court determined that the notification regarding spare parts for first point tax was prospective and did not apply retroactively. Since the assessment pertained to the year 1999-2000, the notification from March 2001 was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the items in question were not subject to first point tax for the relevant assessment year. The disallowance of declaration Form-XXXIV was deemed improper based on this interpretation. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the revision petition in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the notification regarding first point tax liability for spare parts did not apply to the assessment year 1999-2000. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting tax notifications within the specified temporal context to determine their applicability accurately.
|
