2013 (10) TMI 303 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Discredit the exemption on purchase of material by declaration of C Form out of the State - Interpretation of Section 4(2)/15 - Tax rebate on purchase of material - The assessing authority, while making assessment, added the transportation charges and profit on the goods purchased from outside Rajasthan on declaration C and also imposed surcharge and interest on the ground that the assessee had not complied with the Condition No.4 of the Notification dated 28.04.1993 issued by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954 - Held that - There remains no quarrel that any notification issued under the Act of 1954 cannot discredit the rebate claimed by an assessee on purchase of material by declaration under C form in adherence of the Act of 1956. There cannot be two opinion that the Act of 1994 and the Act of 1956 are separate and distinct enactments covering different spheres, and any notification issued under the Act of 1994, therefore, ipso facto cannot be applied vis- -vis a transaction for which tax rebate is claimed by the assessee within the four corners of the Act of 1956. The concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below in the given circumstances has persuaded this Court not to concur with an illogical conclusion of the assessing authority. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 4(2)/15 of the Act of 1994 regarding tax exemption on material purchase using 'C' form declaration from outside Rajasthan.
Validity of assessing authority's decision to impose tax, surcharge, penalty, and interest on the assessee.
Appeal by the Revenue against the appellate authority's decision and the Tax Board's dismissal of the appeal.
Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and the application of legal provisions under the Act of 1994 and the Act of 1956.

Detailed Analysis:
The core issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 4(2)/15 of the Act of 1994 concerning tax exemption on material purchased using a 'C' form declaration from outside Rajasthan. The assessing authority imposed tax, surcharge, penalty, and interest on the assessee for not complying with certain conditions, leading to a demand notice of Rs. 4,57,853. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found the assessment order flawed, citing that the assessing authority misinterpreted the relevant provisions. The appellate authority concluded that the Act of 1994 and the Act of 1956 are distinct, and a notification under one cannot affect tax rebates claimed under the other, ultimately quashing the assessment order.

The appeal by the Revenue against the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)' decision was dismissed by the Tax Board, which upheld the findings of the lower court. The Revenue contended that the Tax Board erred in rejecting the appeal, claiming a misinterpretation of Section 4(2)/15 of the Act of 1994. Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that the Acts of 1994 and 1956 cover different areas, and tax exemptions under one should not affect transactions under the other. The respondent maintained that the decisions of the lower courts were correct, emphasizing the absence of any legal errors and the concurrent factual findings.

Upon thorough analysis, the High Court found that notifications under the Act of 1954 could not nullify tax rebates claimed under the Act of 1956. The Court affirmed the separation of the two Acts and supported the lower courts' conclusions. It noted the lack of legal precedent supporting the Revenue's position and highlighted the consistent stance of the Tax Board in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, deeming it devoid of merit and lacking any legal issues necessitating intervention under Section 86 of the Act of 1994.